DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Booth v. Columbia Casualty Company, 80 So. 2d 869.

21 citing documents.

  • Cloney v. Smith 441 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    and authorities there relied on."
  • Nagem v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 280 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    and authorities therein relied on.” (La.App.
  • Shipley v. Schittone 148 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Heebe's Bakery, Inc. v. Guillot 136 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    to the effect that the plaintiff having preempted the intersection had the right to proceed across.
  • Briscoe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 134 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    Gauthier, et al. v. Fogleman, La.App., (1st Cir. 1951); , (1955); Enga v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, et al., La.App., , (1st Cir. 1958); Bickham v. Audubon Insurance Company, La.App., (1st Cir. 1961).
  • Bickham v. Audubon Insurance Co. 130 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Enga v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, La.App., ; , ; Gauthier v. Fogleman, La.App., .
  • Distinguished Andrea v. Hicks 125 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
    Co., , , upon which appellee heavily relies, is factually distinguishable.
  • Distinguished Emmco Insurance Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co. 119 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
  • Keystone Automobile Club Casualty Co. v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America 117 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Booth v. Columbia Casualty Company, 1955, , .
  • Vigneaux v. Segura 107 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    In support of his decision, he quotes Gau-thier v. Fogleman, La.App., ; , ; and Baranco v. Cotten, La.App., .
  • Enga v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. 104 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    the Supreme Court said this: “Automobile which first enters an intersection has right of way over approaching automobile and driver who does not respect this legal right of automobile which first entered the intersection to proceed through in safety, is negligent, even though automobile thereafte
  • Thomas W. Hooley & Sons v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance 103 So. 2d 449 La. 1958
  • Guillory v. Frank 95 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Co., , ; Thomas v. Checker Cab Co., 229 La.
  • St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Mason 92 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    This failure on the part of Royster was the proximate and direct cause of the accident.” A , , as follows: “The testimony shows that the plaintiff slowed down before entering the intersection and entered the street at a rate of speed of seven miles per hour.
  • Starnes v. Mury 90 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    1079 , , , , and Gauthier v. Fogleman, La.App.
  • Keith v. Royal Indemnity Company 90 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    Pertinent and appropriate here is a , -870, wherein it was stated: "It appears from the evidence in this case that the plaintiff first entered the intersection of the streets traveling at the rate of about seven miles an hour and was fully within the intersection when his car was struck by the garbage truck.
  • Carlson v. Fidelity Mutual Insurance 88 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
  • Bennett v. Liles 87 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    is appropriate here: “ * * * The plaintiff having preempted the intersection had the right to proceed and under the well-settled jurisprudence the automobile which first enters an intersection has the right of way over an approaching automobile and the driver who does not respect this legal right
  • Thomas v. Checker Cab Co. of New Orleans, Inc. 87 So. 2d 605 La. 1956
    and authorities there relied on.
  • Ehtor v. Parish 86 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    and what was said by the Supreme Court in that case probably inclined the trial judge to the view that the pre-emptive right of way belonged to Mrs. Ehtor.
  • Toups v. Trent 85 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    A. In contending that the car driven by Mrs. Toups had preempted the intersection, *98 , , in which the Supreme Court used the following language: “ * * * the automobile which first enters an intersection has the right of way over an approaching automobile * * *>> We have complete confidence in our opinion that the Supreme Court did not intend to establish the principle that rega