Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Billiot v. Noble Drilling Corporation, 109 So. 2d 96.

16 citing documents.

Janet Jabbia v. Sawyer Southern, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Mallory Bonnett, & State Farm Mutual Automobile … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
In a three-vehicle, chain collision, the middle driver can rebut this presumption, So.
Scott Wesley Eastman, Et Ux. v. State Farm Mutual La. 2024
In Billiot v. Noble Drilling Corp ., -98, (1959), the supreme court found that, in this three car accident, the second car rear- ended the first car but no damages were sustained, until a few seconds later when the third car rear-ended the second car and caused person and property damages to 3 both; this court held any negli
Lacy Berthiaume v. Keith Gros La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
4 Cir.), judgment amended, Price- Dunham-Fenet Brick Mfg.
Berthiaume v. Gros 165 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
81 , (1968); , (1959); Price-Dunham-Fenet Brick Mfg.
Ebarb v. Matlock 69 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
(1959); Knowles v. McCright’s Pharmacy, Inc., supra; Chambers v. Graybiel, supra; Domingo v. State Farm Mut.
Domingo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 54 So. 3d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Strother v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 238 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
On this basis, , ; Pupillo v. Eakin, La.App., , and Gandy v. Arrant, La.App., 50 So.
Gleason v. Posey 229 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
2d Cir., 1939); , (1959); (La.App.
Staehle v. Marino 201 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Pupillo v. Eakin, La.App., ; Gandy v. Arrant, La.App., .
Bates v. Lagars 193 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
App.) (Orl.1958writs granted and judgment reversed on grounds other than those for which the case is cited [ , (1959)]), a husband and wife instituted an action to recover damages on their own behalf as well as on behalf of their minor children.
Vander v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc. 192 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
2d Cir. 1939); , (1959); (La.App.
Lagarde v. Smith 169 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Fontenot v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 164 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
e road in the usual way in keeping with the laws of the road, and until he has been made aware of the presence of such rear car by signal or otherwise, he has a right to assume that there is no other vehicle in close proximity in his rear, or, if there is one there, it is under such control as not to interfere with his free use of the road in any lawful manner.’ ” , , and cases cited therein; Foster v. Phoenix Ins.
Scott v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 134 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
2d 569 , annulled on other grounds, , ; Thomas v. Rosenthal, La.App.Orl., ; Stroud v. Standard Accident Ins.
Felt v. Price 126 So. 2d 330 La. 1961
Stevens v. Dowden 125 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960