DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Franicevich v. Lirette, 129 So. 2d 740.

23 citing documents.

  • Valin v. Barnes 550 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    App. 4th Cir.1960), reversed on other grounds, , (1961), reaction time is defined as "the time of transference from instinctive realization to action when a person, without any hint that an emergency is about to confront him, is suddenly required to take action to avert the catastrophe which the emergency seems to present".
  • Pennino v. Ebeling 255 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Co., La.App., ; Phares v. Biggs, La.App., ; Fontenot v. Travelers Indemnity Company, La.App., ; Lawrence v. Core, La.App., ; , .
  • Morales v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 246 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1961); Tauzier v. Bondio, 237 La.
  • Guillot v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance 229 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    App., ; Phares v. Biggs, La.App., ; Fontenot v. Travelers Indemnity Company, La.App., ; Lawrence v. Core, La.App., ; , .
  • Glynn v. Duvernay 217 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Furthermore, , : “It is well settled that a plaintiff who seeks recovery under the doctrine of apparent peril has the burden of establishing all of the facts essential to make this doctrine applicable, and that these facts must be proved and will not be presumed.
  • Sittig v. Allstate Insurance 216 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
  • Williams v. City of Baton Rouge 214 So. 2d 138 La. 1968
    (1961); Fontenot v. Freudenstein, 199 So.
  • Richard v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 212 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
  • Richard v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 212 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    4th Cir. 1964); , (1961).
  • Burkhardt v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 200 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Co., La.App., ; Phares v. Biggs, La.App., ; Fontenot v. Travelers Indemnity Company, La.App., ; Lawrence v. Core, La.App., ; , .
  • McCartney v. Allstate Insurance Co. 197 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    195 , to include the situation in which the defendant does not actually discover the peril but should have done so, provided, of course, that at the time at which the peril should have been discovered there was an opportunity for the defendant to avoid the accident.” In reviewing, under certiorari, the Franicevich case, the Supreme Court ( , , 742 [1961]) noted no error in the statement of principles above quoted, but, in a statement with reference to the case of Jones v. American Mutual Liabili
  • Bogasky v. Falsetta 189 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Campisi v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, La.App., ; , .
  • Jackson v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. 185 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    465 , (1961); Ellis v. Travelers Insurance Co., 241 La.
  • Morris v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark 183 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    943 , ; So.2d 740 ; and Soileau v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., La.App., , for the proposition that the last clear chance does not apply under the above circumstances.
  • Scott v. Glazer 164 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    Co., La.App., ; Phares v. Biggs, La.App., ; Fontenot v. Travelers Indemnity Company, La.App., ; Lawrence v. Core, La.App., ; , .
  • Campisi v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 152 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    Phares v. Biggs, La.App.
  • Desormeaux v. Continental Insurance Company 153 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    3 Cir., ; , ; Phares v. Biggs, La.App.
  • Parks v. Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal R. 152 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
    Rottman v. Beverly, 183 La.
  • Moreau v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 146 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    The plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence; further, the plaintiff who seeks recovery under the last clear chance doctrine has the burden of “establishing all of the facts essential to make this doctrine applicable”, , ; 742-743.
  • Goodart v. Maryland Casualty Company 139 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    465 , , and Ellis v. Travelers Insurance Company, 241 La.
  • Phares v. Biggs 135 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    742: "`* * * if there was nothing about the plaintiff's position or physical condition to indicate that he was in danger, it is immaterial whether defendant saw him or not.
  • Lawrence v. Core 132 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    See the very recent case of Franicevich v. Lirette, 1961, , 129 So.
  • Ellis v. Travelers Insurance Company 129 So. 2d 729 La. 1961
    465 , ,—a like suit arising out of an accident similar to the one herein involved — in which certiorari was granted in order that we might review the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit ( ), affirming a judgment of the trial court which maintained the defendant’s exception to the jurisdiction of th