McPherson v. Lake Area Medical Center

Decision Date11 June 1999
Docket NumberNo. 99-CC-1619.,99-CC-1619.
Citation745 So.2d 14
PartiesKirk and Dianna McPHERSON, Individually, etc. v. LAKE AREA MEDICAL CENTER, et al.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Denied.

JOHNSON, J. not on panel.

MARCUS, VICTORY and TRAYLOR, JJ. would grant the writ.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • McPherson v. Lake Area Medical Center
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • May 24, 2000
    ...exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. McPherson v. Lake Area Medical Center, 99-585 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/24/99), writ denied, 99-1619 (La.6/11/99), 745 So.2d 14 (emphasis The case proceeded to trial by a jury, which found that the breach of the applicable standard of care by Dr. Lewis resulte......
  • Williams v. U.S. Agencies Casualty Insurance Company, Inc., 33,200-CA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • May 15, 2000
    ...Agencies cites Smyre v. Progressive Security Ins. Co., 98-518, (La.App. 5th Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 984, writ denied, 99-0139 (La.6/4/99), 745 So.2d 14, a Fifth Circuit case which upheld a similar exclusion. Reasoning that it would be unreasonable to require a person to pay premiums to co......
  • HAWKINS v. REDMON
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • July 6, 2010
    ...in Smyre v. Progressive Security Insurance Co., 98-0518, 98-0519 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 984, writ denied, 99-0139 (La.6/4/99), 745 So.2d 14. Noting that it would be unreasonable to require a person to pay premiums to cover a vehicle owner who cannot drive due to incapacity or ......
  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Noyes, No. 2002 CA 1876 (La. App. 2/23/2004)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • February 23, 2004
    ...driver. In Smyre v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 98-518 (La. App. 5th Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 984, 986, writ denied, 99-0139 (La. 6/4/99), 745 So.2d 14, the fifth circuit concluded that the insurance statutes neither provided for or against a named insured excluding himself from coverage an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT