Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Campbell v. American Home Assurance Company, 258 So. 2d 81.

33 citing documents.

Dean v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 217 So. 3d 611 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Co., , (1972); Stephens v. King, 2016-376 (La.App.
Espinoza v. Doe 213 So. 3d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Guzzardo v. Davis 5 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Gilton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 839 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Masters v. Courtesy Ford Co. 758 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Malloy v. Vanwinkle 662 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
In fact, the reply letter doctrine has been applied in the exact same context as the present case (proof of uninsured status) , (1972).
Urcia v. Department of Transportation & Development ex rel. State 638 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Avery v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 621 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Releford v. Doe 618 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Bailey v. Phillips 592 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
It is well established that when visibility is impaired by fog a driver must exercise care commensurate with the severity of the conditions, i.e. he must reduce speed, maintain a close lookout and, if necessary, stop his vehicle
Keller v. Amedeo 512 So. 2d 385 La. 1987
Co., , (1972) on remand (La.App.
Schexnaider v. Rome 485 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Dykes v. Peabody Shoreline Geophysical 482 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Masaracchia 464 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Co., , (1972); Unif.Rules of Evid.
LeRay v. St. Paul Fire and Marine 444 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Ross v. Noble 442 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Briggs v. Pellerin 428 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Stidom 408 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Bullock v. Commercial U. Ins. Co. 397 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
In re the Succession of Reeves 393 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Because declarations against interest by a declarant not a party to the suit are an exception to the hearsay rule, , (1972), and because appellant has so conveniently provided us with the pertinent part of the deposition of Catherine Cole Petty, we reproduce that part.
Boudreaux v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Launey v. Thomas 379 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Walters v. Thrasher 381 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Loupe v. Tillman 367 So. 2d 1289 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
[3] Although the particular holding subsequently was deleted by Per Curiam, because the court later found the statute inapplicable due to the fact that it had been adopted prior to the time of trial, , , the Supreme Court had before it the identical statute involved here and it originally held that plaintiff's failure to introduce the proper affidavit simply resulted in the burden of proof remaining with the plaintiff.
Beck v. Allstate Ins. Co. 359 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
O'NEAL v. Southern Farm Bureau Insurance Co. 325 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
(1972), viz: It is well settled that when visibility is impaired by smoke, fog, or other unfavorable atmospheric conditions, a motorist must exercise care in the operation of his vehicle commensurate with the danger created by the conditions.
Phillips v. State ex rel. Department of Institutions 322 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
ater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and potential hazards then existing, having due regard for the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and the condition of the weather, and in no event at a speed in excess of the maximum speeds established by this Chapter or regulation of the department made pursuant thereto.” , (1972), the court said: “It is well settled that when visibility is impaired by smoke, fog, or other unfavorable atmospheric conditions, a motoris
Cates v. BEAUREGARD ELECETRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. 316 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
(1972) our Supreme Court defined contributory negligence generally as follows: "Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of a plaintiff in a negligence action that falls below the standard to which a reasonable man should conform for his own protection."
Wilson v. Pittman 307 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Bubrig v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company 306 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Broussard v. Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. 277 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
The duty imposed on a , (1972), as follows: "It is well settled that when visibility is impaired by smoke, fog, or other unfavorable atmospheric conditions, a motorist must exercise care in the operation of his vehicle commensurate with the danger created by the conditions.
Crum v. Holloway Gravel Company, Inc. 273 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Campbell v. American Home Assurance Co. 264 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
The instant case, together with that of Richards v. American Home Assurance Company, bearing docket number 3897 on the docket of this Court, was remanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court, , , so that we might assess damages to which plaintiff is entitled.