DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 192 So. 2d 679.

25 citing documents.

  • Kimble v. East Baton Rouge Parish 673 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Sharpley v. City of Baton Rouge 665 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Courtade v. Tucker 421 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Watkins v. Strickland Transportation Co. (1956), La.App., , and Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (1966), La.App., .
  • Garison v. Bossier Parish Police Jury 351 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Mitchell v. Sigrest 345 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Watkins v. Strickland Transportation Co. (1956), La.App., , and Hernandez *147 v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (1966), La.App., .
  • O'NEAL v. Southern Farm Bureau Insurance Co. 325 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    In Dove , (3rd La.App., 1966), writs refused as untimely applied for, 250 La.
  • Little v. Mississippi Chemical Express, Inc. 285 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Dufrene v. Miller 266 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
    Watkins v. Strickland Transportation Co. (1956), La.App., , and Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (1966), La.App., .
  • Veal v. Hotard 256 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    much more analogous to the present case.
  • Payne v. Allstate Insurance 256 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., , held a driver liable for permitting his unlighted vehicle to remain parked on a bridge, on a foggy night, without taking measures to warn oncoming motorists.
  • Lewis v. Cooper 251 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Plaintiffs in the two instant appeals maintain that Vascocu had been operating his car through fog of varying intensity for a period of time prior to the accident, and that since his visibility was materially impaired by fog, (La.App.
  • Mabile v. Thibaut Farms 244 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Watkins v. Strickland Transportation Co. (1956), La.App., , and Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (1966), La.App., .
  • Campbell v. American Home Assurance Co. 241 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Derouen v. Allstate Insurance 237 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    The applicable law is set forth in the case of Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, La.App., (3rd Cir.1966) as follows: “The jurisprudence of this state is firmly established to the effect that when visibility is materially impaired because of smoke, mist, dust, fog or other atmospheric conditions, a motorist is held to a duty of operating his vehicle with an unusually high degree of care.
  • Dove v. Messina 230 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    We believe that the facts of the present case bring it within the ruling of Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, La.App., in which the Court stated: "The jurisprudence of this state is firmly established to the effect that when visibility is materially impaired because of smoke, mist, dust, fog or other atmospheric conditions, a motorist is held to a duty of operating his vehicle with an unusually high degree of care.
  • Crockett v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 229 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    In Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, La.App., , the Court held that a motorist traveling at a speed of only twenty-five to thirty miles per hour on a foggy night was contributorily negligent and stated the prevailing rule in Louisiana, as follows: "The jurisprudence of this state is firmly established to the effect that when visibility is materially impaired beca
  • Ardoin v. Travelers Ins. Co. 229 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
  • Tauzier v. Travelers Insurance Co. 228 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Corkern v. McWilliams 228 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Watkins v. Strickland Transportation Co. (1956), La.App., , and Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (1966), La.App., .
  • Sanders v. Eilers 217 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    *210 Watkins v. Strickland Transportation Co. (1956), La.App., , and Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (1966), La.App., .
  • Saucier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 217 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Their argument to support the first specified error of the trial court is grounded in the evidentiary fact that the heavy rain which was falling at the time of the accident and which necessarily hampered Mr. Bonnette’s vision imposed on him an unusually high degree of care, and they cite the case of Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (1966), La.App., .
  • Crain v. W. R. Core Construction Co. 215 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    * * * ” Our Brothers of the Third Circuit in the case of Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, La.App., ; held as follows: “(4-7) The jurisprudence of this state is firmly established to the effect that when visibility is materially impaired because of smoke, mist, dust, fog or other atmospheric conditions, a motorist is held to a duty of operating his vehicle with an unusually high degree of care.
  • Arnold v. Traders & General Insurance 204 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Co., (La.App., 3 Cir., 1966), , writs refused, stated that: “The jurisprudence of this state is firmly established to the effect that when visibility is materially impaired because of smoke, mist, dust, fog or other atmospheric conditions, a motorist is held to a duty of operating his vehicle with an unusually high degree of care.
  • Ward v. Rasberry & Clarke, Inc. 195 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 194 So. 2d 99 La. 1967