DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Youngblood v. Robison, 118 So. 2d 431.

86 citing documents.

  • Christaw v. O'BRYANT 535 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Russo v. City of New Orleans 446 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Putt v. Daussat 381 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Dieudonne v. Guidry 336 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    2nd Cir. 1957), reversed on other grounds, , (1960).
  • Carpenter v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. 333 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    875 , ; , ; Powell v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., ; Moore v. Traders & General Insurance Company, La.App., .
  • Keyser v. Triplett 322 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Bradley v. Allstate Insurance Co. 307 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 239 La.
  • Distinguished McMullan v. Travelers Insurance Co. 311 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (1960), and other similar cases cited by the appellees.
  • Guidry v. Messina 294 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
  • Correge v. Webb 284 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
  • Bailey v. Vinton Nursery, Inc. 285 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    The cases cited by Bailey [ , (1960); Central National Ins.
  • Riebschlaeger v. Laine 284 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    (1960), the court observed that when a crossing is protected by an electric sema *809 phore light it is not essential for the favored driver to look for violations by side street traffic facing the red light for that traffic is not only required to stop but to remain stationary until the semaphore chan
  • Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Finley 282 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Carter v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 278 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Smith v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company 270 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
  • Sturcke v. Clark 261 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
    250 , ; , and Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 239 La.
  • Batiste v. Robottom's Mortuary 258 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La.
  • Vittetoe v. Traders & General Insurance 255 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1960) our Supreme Court said: “ * * * when an intersection is controlled by a stop sign, the motorist on the favored street * * * is entitled to indulge in the assumption that any driver approaching from the less favored street will bring his car to a complete stop before entering the intersection.” [
  • Boles v. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Co. 250 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1960), it was held: “ * * * But when a crossing is protected by an electric semaphore light it is not essential for the favored driver to look for violations by side-street traffic facing the red light for that traffic is not only required to stop but to remain stationary until the semaphore changes t
  • Rome v. S. D'ANTONI, INC. 246 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Appellant maintains the trial court erred in holding Mrs. Rome guilty of negligence because, , , a motorist proceeding on a favorable traffic light is not required to look before entering an intersection, but may rely on the assumption that other motorists will obey the traffic signal and stop.
  • Jordan v. Great American Insurance Company 248 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
    (1960); Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La.
  • Meek v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 244 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    903 , (1948); , -435 (1960).
  • Dennison v. Commercial Standard Insurance Co. 243 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    144 , (1945); , -435 (1960).
  • Franks v. Allstate Insurance Co. 242 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (1960); Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La.
  • Runfalo v. Meynard 242 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    83 , 117 So.2d-919 (1960) ; , (1960); Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La.
  • Austin v. Travelers Insurance Co. 236 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Counsel for defendant has cited a number of cases, , (1960), as authority for the proposition that a motorist approaching and entering an intersection controlled by a traffic signal is entitled to assume that the signals will be understood and obeyed, and on entering the intersection with a favorable light he is not required to anticipate that the other
  • Arnold v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 236 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Gilcrease v. Crow 235 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    2 Cir. 1969), , the court applied the rule, previously established by the Supreme Court, that “A driver approaching an intersection with the green light in his favor is not ‘obliged * * * to turn his head in the direction of traffic approaching from his left or right, * *.’ , , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960).” To the same effect are the holdings in Pellandini v. Bruno (La.App.
  • Powell v. Allstate Insurance Company 233 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
    2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La.
  • Moore v. Traders & General Insurance Company 227 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
  • Guidry v. Covington 225 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    250 , (1959) , , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960).” And in Guidry v. Grain Dealer Mutual Insurance Company, La.App., , 3rd Cir. 1967, the above rule was made applicable to yield signs when the Court held: “Our jurisprudence is established that the motorist on a right of way street, with knowledge of the locatio
  • Ballaron v. Roth 221 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    2 A.L.R.3d 1 ; Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 239 La.
  • Winfield v. Louisiana Underwriters of the American Indemnity Co. 203 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Our decision of this case is controlled by the law announced in the case of Youngblood v. Robinson (1960) , .
  • LaHitte v. Acme Refrigeration Supplies, Inc. 192 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 239 La.
  • Sims v. Miller 193 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    1006 , ; , , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 ; Henderson v. Central Mutual Ins.
  • Fruge v. Aetna Insurance 194 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    83 , (1960); , , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La.
  • Polk v. New York Fire and Marine Underwriters, Inc. 192 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    83 , (1960); , , 12 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Hunt v. West, 187 So.
  • Planchard v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 192 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); (La.App.
  • Hunt v. West 187 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    In rendering his judgment, , , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 and Le Beau v. Baton Rouge Bus Company, La.App., , which said cases state the well established Louisiana law that when a crossing is protected by an electric semaphore light it is not essential for the favored driver to look for violations by looking from left to right, but
  • Doucette v. Primeaux 180 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    250 , (1959) and Youngblood v. *869 Robison, , , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960)."
  • McCaa v. Hertz Corp. 178 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    250 , (1959) , , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960).
  • Reynolds v. Allstate Insurance 176 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    875 , ; , ; Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 239 La.
  • Micheli v. Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Company 174 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    486 , ; , ; Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 239 La.
  • Vidrine v. General Fire and Casualty Company 168 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
  • Breland v. American Insurance Company 163 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
  • Bourgeois v. Francois 161 So. 2d 750 La. 1964
    250 , ; , and Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 239 La.
  • Johnston v. Peerless Insurance 159 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    83 , ; , Noonan v. London Guarantee and Accident Company, La.App.2d Cir., 1961, .
  • Henderson v. Travelers Indemnity Company 158 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
    With reference to a motorist proceeding on a favorable signal, , 118 So.
  • Whatley v. Jones 157 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Emmco Insurance Co. v. Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corp., La.App., ; Schexnayder v. Martin, La.App., .
  • Schoonmaker v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania 156 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    83 , , in relation to the factual situation here involved, maintaining these cases are authority for a motorist approaching an intersection favored with a light proceeding through same without being required to anticipate another motorist entering the intersection from an opposing direction ignoring the admon