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.
6 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Linnear v. CENTERPOINT ENERGY ENTEX/RELIANTgreen2 sentences2025In Linnear v. CenterPoint Energy Entex/Reliant Energy, 06-3030 (La.9/5/07), 966 So. 2d 36 , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the proper application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in cases where the plaintiff uses circumstantial evidence alone to prove negligence by the defendant[.] The doctrine, meaning “the thing speaks for itself,” permits the inference of negligence on the part of the defendant from the circumstances surrounding the injury[.] [T]he doctrine applies when three criteria are met. 2022They do not explain their understanding of that rule, but contend that, because the defendants admit driving a vehicle that falls in the 12 same category as that identified by the plaintiffs, res ipsa loquitor applies and “fills in any perceived gap in the evidence.” As explained in Linnear v. CenterPoint Energy Entex/Reliant Energy, 06-3030 (La. 9/5/07), 966 So. 2d 36 , the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in cases where the plaintiff uses circumstantial evidence alone to prove negligence by the defendant. | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cangelosi v. OUR LADY OF LAKE REG. MED. CTR.
green
2 sentences2021Cangelosi [v. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, 564 So.2d 654 (La.1989)]. . . . 2021C.C. art. 2696 provides that “[t]he lessor warrants the lessee that the thing is suitable for the purpose for which it was leased and that it is free of vices or defects that prevent its use for that purpose”, and “[t]his warranty also extends to vices or defects that arise after the delivery of the thing and are not attributable to the fault of the lessee.” 3 In Linnear v. CenterPoint Energy Entex/Reliant Energy, 06-3030, p. 6 (La. 9/5/07), 966 So.2d 36, 41 (quoting Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, 564 So.2d 654 (La. 1989)(on rehearing)), the Louisiana Supreme Court | 2 | 2007–2021 |