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.
8 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tollivergreen2 sentences2000State v. Tolliver, *1037 464 So.2d 1088, 1090 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985). 1990State v. Tolliver, 464 So.2d 1088, 1090 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985). | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.green1 sentence1982See Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 417 So.2d 44 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Piggly Wiggly Operatorsgreen1 sentence1982In Edwards v. Piggly Wiggly Operators, 401 So.2d 493, 495 (La.App. 2d Cir.1981), the court stated: "We recognize, of course, that to require a storekeeper to keep a floor completely dry during a rainstorm or to hold him responsible for every slick place due to tracked-in rain water would impose an unreasonable standard of care and would, in effect, make him an insurer of the customer's safetywhich is not required." Finally, having concluded the floor has not been shown to be unreasonably dangerous, it cannot be said to be defective for purposes of imposing strict liability under La.Civ.Code a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lewis v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION & DEV.
green
1 sentence2003Furthermore, in Lewis v. State Through Dept. of Transp. and Dev., 94-2370 (La.4/21/95), 654 So.2d 311 , the supreme court rejected the "under the tree" method as the only reasonable inspection procedure and did not impose liability when DOTD's drive-by inspections had failed to detect the presence of a dead tree because it was obscured by foliage created by two contiguous trees. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
John Hobbs v. Frank Blackburn, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
green
1 sentence1987Hobbs, supra. Jurisprudence on this issue has yielded a two prong test. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Holland v. Buckley
green
1 sentence1976We do not believe that Holland v. Buckley, supra , imposes any such requirement to keep all doors locked to prevent the possibility that young Kinchen would proceed into the Williams' back yard contrary to instructions. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Quina v. Robert's
green
1 sentence1963In holding that Wise's conduct constituted "an unreasonable violation of the plaintiff's right to privacy," the majority relies upon the cases of Tuyes v. Chambers, 144 La. 723 , 81 So. 265 (1919); Quina v. Roberts, La.App.Orl., 16 So.2d 558 (1944); Hamilton v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 82 So.2d 61 (1955, Cert. denied); and the Alabama case of Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 272 Ala. 174 , 132 So.2d 321 (1961). | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Tuyes v. Chambers
green
2 sentences1963In holding that Wise's conduct constituted "an unreasonable violation of the plaintiff's right to privacy," the majority relies upon the cases of Tuyes v. Chambers, 144 La. 723 , 81 So. 265 (1919); Quina v. Roberts, La.App.Orl., 16 So.2d 558 (1944); Hamilton v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 82 So.2d 61 (1955, Cert. denied); and the Alabama case of Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 272 Ala. 174 , 132 So.2d 321 (1961). 1963In holding that Wise's conduct constituted "an unreasonable violation of the plaintiff's right to privacy," the majority relies upon the cases of Tuyes v. Chambers, 144 La. 723 , 81 So. 265 (1919); Quina v. Roberts, La.App.Orl., 16 So.2d 558 (1944); Hamilton v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 82 So.2d 61 (1955, Cert. denied); and the Alabama case of Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 272 Ala. 174 , 132 So.2d 321 (1961). | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Hamilton v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1963In holding that Wise's conduct constituted "an unreasonable violation of the plaintiff's right to privacy," the majority relies upon the cases of Tuyes v. Chambers, 144 La. 723 , 81 So. 265 (1919); Quina v. Roberts, La.App.Orl., 16 So.2d 558 (1944); Hamilton v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 82 So.2d 61 (1955, Cert. denied); and the Alabama case of Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 272 Ala. 174 , 132 So.2d 321 (1961). | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences1963In holding that Wise's conduct constituted "an unreasonable violation of the plaintiff's right to privacy," the majority relies upon the cases of Tuyes v. Chambers, 144 La. 723 , 81 So. 265 (1919); Quina v. Roberts, La.App.Orl., 16 So.2d 558 (1944); Hamilton v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 82 So.2d 61 (1955, Cert. denied); and the Alabama case of Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 272 Ala. 174 , 132 So.2d 321 (1961). 1963In holding that Wise's conduct constituted "an unreasonable violation of the plaintiff's right to privacy," the majority relies upon the cases of Tuyes v. Chambers, 144 La. 723 , 81 So. 265 (1919); Quina v. Roberts, La.App.Orl., 16 So.2d 558 (1944); Hamilton v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 82 So.2d 61 (1955, Cert. denied); and the Alabama case of Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 272 Ala. 174 , 132 So.2d 321 (1961). | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Osthoff v. Flotte
neutral
1 sentence1931Ann. 1094 , 20 So. 282, 283 , reading that “a general rule prescribed by a later statute is not accepted as manifesting any purpose to disturb the previously enacted special rule.” This rule obviously rests on the same'general principle as does the well-established • rule that a general statute does not repeal a local or a special statute, although the two are in conflict, unless it clearly appear that it was the legislative intention to repeal the local or special law. v The rule stated in Naturalization of Osthoff v. Elotte, is not an unreasonable rule, when properly applied, to ascertain th | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.