DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Schroeder v. Mounes, 52 So. 2d 67.

19 citing documents.

  • Sentry Ins. v. Marks 398 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    App., ; Floyd v. Roberts, La.App., ; Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., .
  • United States Automobile Ass'n v. Dusset 292 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    : “As we have already said, the situation was unusual, and under the circumstances, each driver should have exercised the utmost caution.
  • Fagot v. Silbernagel 278 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    4th Cir. 1965); (Orleans La.App.
  • Byrnes v. Bostick 214 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    Lilly v. Schmitt, La.App., ; Kerner v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., La.App., ; Biamonte v. Anderson, La.App., ; Floyd v. Roberts, La.App., ; Indovina v. Logrande, La.App., ; Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., .
  • Gendusa v. Rabel 212 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Lilly v. Schmitt, supra; Kerner v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., La.App., ; LeBreton v. Ballanga, La.App., ; Bruno v. Anderson, La.App., ; Eschmann v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, La.App., ; Floyd v. Roberts, La.App., ; Indovina v. Logrande, La.App., ; Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., .
  • Leonard v. Barthe 212 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
  • Vastola v. Insurance Co. of North America 204 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    In support of this argument, the defendant cites the cases of Indovina v. Logrande, La.App., (1954) and Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., (1951).
  • Lilly v. Schmitt 198 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Kerner v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., La.App., ; LeBreton v. Ballanga, La.App., ; Bruno v. Anderson, La.App., ; Eschmann v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, La.App., ; Floyd v. Roberts, La.App., ; Indovina v. Logrande, La.App., ; Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., .
  • Wallace v. Travelers Insurance Company 195 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    We also acknowledge and adhere to the rule announced in Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., , which holds a driver guilty of negligence in driving at a lawfully posted speed when circumstances show a reasonably prudent driver would not have done so.
  • Kerner v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 172 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Stogner v. American Motorists Insurance Co., La.App., ; Floyd v. Roberts, La.App., ; Indovina v. Logrande, La.App., ; Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., .
  • LeBreton v. Ballanga 146 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
    Sullivan v. Locke, La.App., ; Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., .
  • Moss v. Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co. 134 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    The facts here involved closely resemble those which were before this court in the cases of Indovina v. Logrande, La.App., , Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., , and Emmco Insurance Co. v. Ball, La.App., .
  • Warner v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania 129 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    In Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App.1951, , the accident happened in downtown New Orleans at the intersection of Canal and South Liberty Streets.
  • Green v. Lothery 126 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Indovina v. Logrande, La.App., ; Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., .
  • Biamonte v. Anderson 123 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    She is accordingly, in this court’s opinion, guilty of contributory negligence which would bar her recovery.” *655 ; ; , decided by this court, in each of which we deemed the respective drivers guilty of negligence prox-imating the accident.
  • Emmco Insurance v. Ball 101 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    *625 The situation closely resembles those which were presented to us in Indovina v. Logrande, La.App., , and in Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., .
  • Emmco Insurance Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co. 87 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Those three cases are: Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App., ; Indovina v. Logrande, La.App., and Floyd v. Roberts, La.App., .
  • Floyd v. Roberts 72 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    The principle herein involved is analogous to and controlled by the ratio deciden-di of Schroeder v. Mounes, La.App.1951, and Indovina v. Logrande, La.App.1954, .
  • Indovina v. Logrande 70 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    wherein we concluded: "As we have already said, the situation was unusual, and under the circumstances, each driver should have exercised the utmost caution.