Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Phelpsgreen1 sentence2007See Jackson v. Phelps, 506 So.2d 515 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 508 So.2d 829 (La.1987). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Jackson v. Phelpsgreen1 sentence2007See Jackson v. Phelps, 506 So.2d 515 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 508 So.2d 829 (La.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company
neutral
2 sentences1987Smith v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company, 270 So.2d 637 (La.App. 2d Cir.1972). 1974It is pointed out that the recent case of Smith v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company, 270 So.2d 637 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1972), invalidated a reduction clause as being in contravention of the statute herein in question. | 2 | 1974–1987 |
Nall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2018In finding that the reduction clause was contrary to public policy and would not be applied, this court discussed Breaux , supra , and Nall , supra , and found those cases to be distinguishable. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Breaux v. Government Emp. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2018In finding that the reduction clause was contrary to public policy and would not be applied, this court discussed Breaux , supra , and Nall , supra , and found those cases to be distinguishable. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pitts v. Pickens
neutral
1 sentence2001Co., 252 La. 709 , 214 So.2d 116 (1968) (a reduction clause in policy, which provided for limits of $100,000, served to restrict coverage in certain cases to the minimum amount required by law.) [5] See also, Pitts v. Pickens, 655 So.2d 520 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 662 So.2d 469 (La.1995), wherein the court determined that a similar endorsement which limited the maximum coverage provided by the policy controlled the situation presented in the case and found that the minimum limits required were the appropriate level of coverage. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2001Co., 252 La. 709 , 214 So.2d 116 (1968) (a reduction clause in policy, which provided for limits of $100,000, served to restrict coverage in certain cases to the minimum amount required by law.) [5] See also, Pitts v. Pickens, 655 So.2d 520 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 662 So.2d 469 (La.1995), wherein the court determined that a similar endorsement which limited the maximum coverage provided by the policy controlled the situation presented in the case and found that the minimum limits required were the appropriate level of coverage. 2001Co., 252 La. 709 , 214 So.2d 116 (1968) (a reduction clause in policy, which provided for limits of $100,000, served to restrict coverage in certain cases to the minimum amount required by law.) [5] See also, Pitts v. Pickens, 655 So.2d 520 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 662 So.2d 469 (La.1995), wherein the court determined that a similar endorsement which limited the maximum coverage provided by the policy controlled the situation presented in the case and found that the minimum limits required were the appropriate level of coverage. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Pitts v. Pickens
neutral
1 sentence2001Co., 252 La. 709 , 214 So.2d 116 (1968) (a reduction clause in policy, which provided for limits of $100,000, served to restrict coverage in certain cases to the minimum amount required by law.) [5] See also, Pitts v. Pickens, 655 So.2d 520 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 662 So.2d 469 (La.1995), wherein the court determined that a similar endorsement which limited the maximum coverage provided by the policy controlled the situation presented in the case and found that the minimum limits required were the appropriate level of coverage. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Fisher v. Morrison
green
1 sentence1992App. 1st Cir.1991), writs denied, 588 So.2d 1114 and 1121 (La.1991) (a reduction clause which allowed for a credit against UM limits for the full amount paid by the tortfeasor's liability insurance was struck down); Fisher v. Morrison, 519 So.2d 805 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987) (a public or livery conveyance exclusion from UM coverage was found to be unenforceable); Block v. Reliance Ins. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State ex rel. Brian v. Third Circuit Court of Appeal
neutral
1 sentence1992App. 1st Cir.1991), writs denied, 588 So.2d 1114 and 1121 (La.1991) (a reduction clause which allowed for a credit against UM limits for the full amount paid by the tortfeasor's liability insurance was struck down); Fisher v. Morrison, 519 So.2d 805 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987) (a public or livery conveyance exclusion from UM coverage was found to be unenforceable); Block v. Reliance Ins. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Miller v. Duthu
green
2 sentences1987To support the validity of the reduction clause under consideration Fireman's relies upon the case of Miller v. Duthu, 470 So.2d 500 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985). 1987To support the validity of the reduction clause under consideration Fireman's relies upon the case of Miller v. Duthu, 470 So.2d 500 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Washington
green
1 sentence1980Deane v. McGee, 261 La. 684 , 260 So.2d 669 (1972) and Graham v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 261 La. 85 , 259 So.2d 22 (1972), stand for the proposition that while an uninsured motorist policy must be written in the minimum legal amount, an insured may contractually arrange for greater coverage. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Deane v. McGee
green
1 sentence1980Deane v. McGee, 261 La. 684 , 260 So.2d 669 (1972) and Graham v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 261 La. 85 , 259 So.2d 22 (1972), stand for the proposition that while an uninsured motorist policy must be written in the minimum legal amount, an insured may contractually arrange for greater coverage. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Graham v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa.
green
2 sentences1980Deane v. McGee, 261 La. 684 , 260 So.2d 669 (1972) and Graham v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 261 La. 85 , 259 So.2d 22 (1972), stand for the proposition that while an uninsured motorist policy must be written in the minimum legal amount, an insured may contractually arrange for greater coverage. 1980Deane v. McGee, 261 La. 684 , 260 So.2d 669 (1972) and Graham v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 261 La. 85 , 259 So.2d 22 (1972), stand for the proposition that while an uninsured motorist policy must be written in the minimum legal amount, an insured may contractually arrange for greater coverage. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Sturgill v. Life Insurance Company of Georgia
green
2 sentences1972Any other interpretation (except that of Sturgill, supra, which not even plaintiff espouses) perverts a reduction clause into an exclusion of coverage clause, in every industrial accident case of dismemberment. 1972Any other interpretation (except that of Sturgill, supra, which not even plaintiff espouses) perverts a reduction clause into an exclusion of coverage clause, in every industrial accident case of dismemberment. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Thibodeaux v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1962Co., 237 La. 722 , 112 So.2d 423 , 75 A.L.R. 2d 1228 , the policy at issue contained a reduction clause which provided the accident indemnity policy did not cover any loss "which results from or is contributed to by (a) sickness or bodily or mental infirmity * * *". 1962Co., 237 La. 722 , 112 So.2d 423 , 75 A.L.R. 2d 1228 , the policy at issue contained a reduction clause which provided the accident indemnity policy did not cover any loss "which results from or is contributed to by (a) sickness or bodily or mental infirmity * * *". | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.