Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 117 So. 2d 919.

39 citing documents.

Gabel v. Presswood 504 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Ortigo v. Merritt 488 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Jones v. Winston 437 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Bradley v. Allstate Insurance Co. 307 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
338 , ; , ; Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Finley 282 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
338 , ; , ; Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La.
Carter v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 278 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
338 , ; , ; Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La.
Sturcke v. Clark 261 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
Rome v. S. D'ANTONI, INC. 246 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
338 , ; , , and Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La.
Runfalo v. Meynard 242 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
App.1970); , 117 So.2d-919 (1960) ; Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La.
Pettus v. Lehrmann 230 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Kientz v. Charles Dennery, 209 La.
Ballaron v. Roth 221 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
338 , , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 ; , 117 So.
Winfield v. Louisiana Underwriters of the American Indemnity Co. 203 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
“This Court has given implied recognition to this distinction and has specifically held that it is not necessary for one intending to traverse an intersection on *859 a green semaphore light to look to the left or the right before entering.” Also see Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company (1960) , ; LeBeau v. Baton Rouge Bus Co. (1961) ; Marbury v. Arnold (1962) ; and Hunt v. West (1966) .
Ronquille v. American Casualty Co. 204 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La.
LaHitte v. Acme Refrigeration Supplies, Inc. 192 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
338 , , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); , (1960)
Fruge v. Aetna Insurance 194 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
486 , (1960); , (1960); Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La.
Polk v. New York Fire and Marine Underwriters, Inc. 192 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
(1960); Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La.
Reynolds v. Allstate Insurance 176 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
338 , ; , ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La.
Micheli v. Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Company 174 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Bourgeois v. Francois 161 So. 2d 750 La. 1964
Johnston v. Peerless Insurance 159 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Hence, in gauging the fault which is attributed to one, who was operating his car in obedience to positive law, the courts should be convinced that the dereliction was most substantial and that it was such a direct factor that, without it, the accident would not have occurred.” See, also: , ; Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La.
Schoonmaker v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania 156 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Counsel for Defendants attempt to distinguish the jurisprudence enunciated in *85 , and Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La.
Doga v. United States Fire Insurance 151 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
the court made the following statement: “Since Adams was proceeding on a favorable light under a semaphore system, he was not held to the same degree of care and vigilance as if no such system prevailed.
Emmco Insurance v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. 151 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La.
Allen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 151 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
n of appellants that the learned trial court erred in the following respects, namely: (1) in relieving Mrs. LaBauve of liability predicated upon the principle that a motorist approaching a , 117 So.
Sittig v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 149 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
4th Cir., 1961, .” The Supreme Court, , , said: “Since Adams was proceeding on a favorable light under a semaphore system, he was not held to the same degree of care and vigilance as if no such system prevailed.
Roth v. Lloyd S. Gaubert, Inc. 144 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Williamson v. Stephens 140 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Emmco Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 138 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
[338,] ; Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., [239] La., [83,] ; Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, 238 La.
Homeland Insurance Co. of America v. Marshall 138 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
338 , ; , ; Moss v. Travelers Insurance Company, La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La.
Dupuy v. Maury 136 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Le Beau v. Baton Rouge Bus Co. 136 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
"Howevermuch we might have been inclined some years ago to accept this argument and the authorities cited, , ; and Youngblood v. Robison et al., 239 La.
Shaw v. Globe Indemnity Company 134 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Collins v. Purkey 134 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
( , ) Moreover, the cases of Youngblood v. Robison, supra, and Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, supra, were cited as authority in the Derouen case.
Patterson v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company 131 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Howevermuch we might have been inclined some years ago to accept this argument and the authorities cited, , ; and Youngblood v. Robinson et al., 239 La.
Derouen v. American Employers Insurance Company 123 So. 2d 896 La. 1960
Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La.
Winningham v. Weir 123 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
250 , ; Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc. et al., 1960, , ; and Youngblood v. Robison et al., 1960, 239 La.
Allen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 120 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
Youngblood v. Robison, La., ; Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., La., ; Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, 238 La.
Simmons v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 125 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Simmons ex rel. Simmons v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 125 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
For reasons set forth in its opinion the Supreme Court reversed our judgment to the extent of rejecting plaintiff’s demands against the two last named defendants, , .