DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hickman Ex Rel. Iles v. Southern Pacific Transport Co., 262 So. 2d 385.

233 citing documents.

  • Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Stidom 408 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Kaplan v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 409 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Rodgers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad 405 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Roberts v. State ex rel. Louisiana Health & Human Resources Administration 404 So. 2d 1221 La. 1981
    (1972); Blanchard v. Ogima, supra.
  • Roberts v. STATE, THROUGH LA. HEALTH, ETC. 404 So. 2d 1221 La. 1981
    (1972); Blanchard v. Ogima, supra .
  • Arledge v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. 401 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    (1972); Amyx v. Henry & Hall, 227 La.
  • McCrory v. Rochester 398 So. 2d 1115 La. 1981
  • Security Timber & Land Co. v. Reed 398 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    as follows: “One who suddenly finds himself in a position of imminent peril, without sufficient time to consider and weigh all the circumstances or best means that may be adopted to avoid an impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflect
  • Breaux v. Roy Young, Inc. 397 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    The Court, , (1972), restated the "sudden emergency" doctrine on page 389, where it said: "One who suddenly finds himself in a position of imminent peril, without sufficient time to consider and weigh all the circumstances or best means that may be adopted to avoid an impending danger, is not guilty of negligence i
  • Robertson v. Travis 393 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Hryhorchuk v. Smith 390 So. 2d 497 La. 1980
    Pacific Transport Co., , (1972).
  • Hryhorchuk v. Smith 379 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    (1972) ; Blanchard v. Ogima, 253 La.
  • Ryder v. Trisler 367 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
  • Stansbury v. Hover 366 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • McKenzie v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. 363 So. 2d 1340 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
  • London v. Ryan 349 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Kahoe v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. 349 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    *1349 , , page 389 (1972).
  • Kahoe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 349 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    *1349 , , page 389 (1972).
  • Savoie v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 347 So. 2d 188 La. 1977
    (1972); Blanchard v. Ogima, 253 La.
  • City Auto Wreckers, Inc. v. Wright 346 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Johnigan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 345 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Maxwell v. Bernard 343 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    The term "independent contractor" , (1972): "The law further recognizes that inquiry to determine whether a relationship is that of independent contractor or that of mere servant requires, among other factors, the application of the principal test: the control over the work reserved by the employer.
  • Wessinger v. Overton 339 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    262 So.2d *1275 385, 389 (1972).
  • Carney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 335 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Breaux v. State 326 So. 2d 481 La. 1976
    (1972), this Court stated the rule to apply in emergency situations as follows: "One who suddenly finds himself in a position of imminent peril, without sufficient time to consider and weigh all the circumstances or best means that may be adopted to avoid an impending danger, is not guilty of negligenc
  • Odom v. Eaves 311 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    (1972), and Amyx v. Henry & Hall, 227 La.
  • Witty v. T. L. James & Co. 299 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Mitchell v. Fowler 295 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    (1972): "One who suddenly finds himself in a position of imminent peril, without sufficient time to consider and weigh all the circumstances or best means that may be adopted to avoid an impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear
  • Locascio v. Lake Terrace Center, Inc. 293 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Smith v. Tate 289 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    the Supreme Court said: “One who suddenly finds himself in a position of imminent peril, without sufficient time to consider and weigh all the circumstances or best means that may be adopted to avoid an impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon refl
  • Watson v. Tippen 279 So. 2d 697 La. 1973
  • Epperly v. Kerrigan 275 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
    But defendants argue that the standard of care to be applied to Mrs. Kerrigan is *890 , , as follows: "One who suddenly finds himself in a position of imminent peril, without sufficient time to consider and weigh all the circumstances or best means that may be adopted to avoid an impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may a
  • Richardson v. Tate 269 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973