Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Soprano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 165 So. 2d 308.

37 citing documents.

Pinn v. Pennison 209 So. 3d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Burnett v. Lewis 852 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
King v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co. 782 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
857 , (1943); , (1964); and La.
Nunez v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 774 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
-35 , (1964), the supreme court discussed the duty owed by a motorist who is entering an intersection where the traffic lights are inoperable: A non-functioning, four-sided semaphore signal device at an intersection in plain view of an ordinary observant motorist imposes a duty of extreme cautio
Melancon v. City of Lafayette 719 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 696 So. 2d 569 La. 1997
Williams v. Dean 694 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
(1964), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the statutory right of way provided in LSA-R.S.
Martin v. Champion Ins. Co. 656 So. 2d 991 La. 1995
(holding UM carrier for legal interest on policy limits from date of judicial demand); , (holding liability insurer liable for legal interest on policy limits from date of judicial demand); LeBlanc v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 202 La.
Thompson v. Chevron USA, Inc. 653 So. 2d 1351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
however, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the statutory right of way granted by La.R.S.
Remedies v. Lopez 560 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
McGowan v. Sewerage and Water Bd. 555 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
LeBlanc v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, 202 La.
Levet v. Calais & Sons, Inc. 514 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Burton v. Foret 498 So. 2d 706 La. 1986
Co., , (1964) and LeBlanc v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 202 La.
Rosemond v. Diggs 468 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Rico v. Vangundy 461 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
[2] , (1964) to support a finding of contributory negligence on the part of appellee.
Hampton v. Rubicon Chemicals, Inc. 458 So. 2d 1260 La. 1984
Soprano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 246 La.524
Duvernay v. ST. THROUGH DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY 433 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
dealt with a similar situation and established that once a traffic signal has been installed, the signal device controls as long as it is reasonably visible, whether or not it is functional: Should the device become non-operative, as in this case, the duty of an approaching motorist is then to exercise
Gaudet v. Louisiana Dept. of Highways 432 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
*869 , (1964), dealt with a similar situation and established: Once a municipality has erected a four-sided automatic signal device at an intersection such as this, [statutory traffic designations] are no longer applicable so long as that device remains visible to an ordinary, observant motorist whether
Orazio v. Durel 407 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Co., , (1964) at p. 311.
Hancock v. Safeco Ins. Co. 368 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Reserve Ins. Co. 364 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
O'DONNELL v. Fidelity General Ins. Co. 344 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
(1964); LeBlanc v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 202 La.
Borden v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 316 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Co., , , a case strikingly similar to the instant case, the court stated: “The question presented here, however, concerns the rights and duties of *415 drivers approaching an intersection normally controlled by a three-phase, four-sided semaphore signal which is in place but temporarily out of order.
Montgomery v. City of New Orleans 266 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
In discussing the above quoted article, prior to its amendment, , (1964) stated: “The purpose of the article is to give litigants the right to examine their opponents under cross-examination, without vouching for the truth of their testimony or becoming bound by their answers.” ( ) .
Sunday v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 243 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Co., , .; Hinegardner v. Dickey’s Potato Chip Company, supra; Byers v. Creel, La.App., ; Lucas v. Broussard, La.App., ; Vidrine v. General Fire & Casualty Company, La.App., ; Westchester Fire Insurance Company v. Dar-dar, La.App., .
Orgeron v. Earl Gibbon Transport, Inc. 235 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Co., , , Justice Summers paraphrased and adopted as his own the holding in LeBlanc v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 202 La.
Gray v. Nathan 221 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
"Soprano v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 1964 [ ], .
Gendusa v. Rabel 212 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Co., , ; Culpepper v. Leonard Truck Lines, 208 La.
Hinegardner v. Dickey's Potato Chip Company 205 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Lilly v. Schmitt 198 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Co., , ; Culpepper v. Leonard Truck Lines, 208 La.
Murry v. Bankers Fire & Marine Insurance Company 198 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Fruge v. Aetna Insurance 194 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Co., , 165 So.2d *102 308 (1964); Derouen v. American Employers Insurance Co., 240 La.
Distinguished Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Bryant 191 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Voelker v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 190 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
Co., , ; Succession of Land, 212 La.
Doty v. Central Mutual Insurance Company 186 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Co., , (1964); Le Blanc v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 202 La.
Terro v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 169 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Co., , ; LeBlanc v. New Amsterdam Cas.
Vidrine v. General Fire and Casualty Company 168 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Co., , , 312: "A non-functioning, four-sided semaphore signal device at an intersection in plain view of an ordinary observant motorist imposes a duty of extreme caution on any motorist approaching or entering that intersection.