DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Craker v. Allstate Insurance Company, 250 So. 2d 746.

19 citing documents.

  • Shroyer v. Grush 555 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Ledbetter v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 502 So. 2d 1383 La. 1987
  • Dubois v. Louviere 462 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    the court said, at 749: “The old rule literally applied is no longer a practical or fair regulation for the nighttime speed of modern drivers of modern cars on our highways.
  • Hryhorchuk v. Smith 379 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Baham v. Patterson 353 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    (1971), the Supreme Court rejected the so-called "range of vision" or "assured clear distance" rule as the standard of care to be exacted of the nighttime driver as "unworkable and unrealistic with modern vehicles on modern highways."
  • Walker v. Graham 343 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Billiot v. Bourg 338 So. 2d 1148 La. 1976
    (1971); Suire v. Winters, 233 La.
  • Chaisson v. J. Ray McDermott & Co. 324 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1971), the court said: "The old rule literally applied is no longer a practical or fair regulation for the night time speed of modern drivers of modern cars on our highways.
  • Toomer Electrical Co., Inc. v. Humble Oil & Refin. Co. 321 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1971), `which ones (dangers) are foreseeable is a question that has to be answered by common sense, on the basis of the circumstances in each case.'
  • Welch v. Mayhall 325 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Gabbard v. Areno 302 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Murphy v. Allstate Insurance Company 295 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
  • Maturin v. Dronet 288 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    Defendant's argument, based upon an exception to the "assured clear distance" rule, , (1971), wherein the following was stated: "The old rule literally applied is no longer a practical or fair regulation for the nighttime speed of modern drivers of modern cars on our highways.
  • Little v. Mississippi Chemical Express, Inc. 285 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Vessel v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 276 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Calais v. Thibodeaux (La.App.3rd Cir. 1969) ; Frank v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (La.App.3d Cir. 1971) ; Carona v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., (La.App.1st Cir. 1964) ; and Craker v. Allstate Insurance Company (1971) , .
  • Epperly v. Kerrigan 275 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
  • Odom v. Hooper 273 So. 2d 510 La. 1973
    The Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply Stein only to those cases involving appeals after trial on the merits and particularly in applying the `assured clear distance' rule of Stein to the motorist who collides with a , ."
  • Criticized Veal v. Hotard 256 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Gilbert Veal’s , (1971).
  • Gautreaux v. Pierre 254 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    Finally, , , the conclusion that plaintiffs were not contributorily negligent is inescapable, and their right to recovery is established.