DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Eubanks v. Brasseal, 310 So. 2d 550.

37 citing documents.

  • Joseph Stelly v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    Our supreme court has explained that “where a traffic law is designed to protect life and property, it is a safety measure, the violation of which is negligence per se and is actionable if it was a legal cause of the collision.” 19 (La.1975).
  • Stelly v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. 266 So. 3d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    Eubanks v. Brasseal , , 553 (La.
  • Roberts v. Rudzis 146 So. 3d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Ly v. State Through Dept, of Public Safety and Corrections, (La.App.
  • Matherne v. Lorraine 888 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    "a following motorist who strikes a preceding motorist from the rear is presumed to have breached the standard of conduct prescribed in R.S.
  • Dolmo v. Williams 753 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • Daigle v. Mumphrey 691 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • Urcia v. Department of Transportation & Development ex rel. State 638 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Stapleton v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp. 627 So. 2d 1358 La. 1993
  • Avery v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 621 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Bellas v. Dresser Industries, Inc. 564 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Veal, 543 So.2d at 1123 ().
  • Veal v. Forrest 543 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Webb v. Jordan 540 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Sonnier v. Reed 532 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a following motorist who strikes a preceding motorist from the rear is presumed to have breached the standard of conduct set forth by La.R.S.
  • Sherman v. American Deposit Insurance Co. 525 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Dickerson v. Jordan 514 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Collins v. Lemoine 517 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Mart v. Hill 505 So. 2d 1120 La. 1987
  • Scott v. Barclay's Amer. Leasing Service 506 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    verning liability of a following motorist in a rear-end collision reveals that there are at least three possible results as to a following motorist: (1) the following motorist may be liable, when the facts call for application of the general rule that a following motorist who strikes a car ahead is presumed to be negligent, and bears the burden of proving he was not at fault, (2) the following motorist may exculpate himself from liability when the facts establish that he kept his vehicle under c
  • Knight v. Miller 503 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • Anderson v. Rabb 484 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    ning liability of a following motorist in a rear-end collision reveals that there are at least three possible results as to a following motorist: (1) the following motorist may be liable, where the facts call for application of the general rule that a following motorist who strikes the car ahead is presumed to be negligent, and bears the burden of proving he was not at fault, (La.
  • Walker v. Insured Lloyds 477 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    for its teachings as to the burden of proof and the justification “for failing to comply with these [R.S, 32:81(A)(B)] prohibitory standards * * *.” The principles reiterated in Eubanks, supra, do not help defendant-appellant when applied to the facts of the present case and for that reason Eubanks is factua
  • State v. Gennardo 464 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Triangle Trucking Co. v. Alexander 451 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    for the proposition that a following motorist who strikes a preceding motorist from the rear has the burden to exonerate himself from liability.
  • Cosse v. Bruley 445 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Housey v. City of New Orleans 441 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Lewis v. Variste 422 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Smith v. Schwary 422 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Smith v. Alexander 415 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Covington v. Hughes 402 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Williams v. Schommer 396 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • McCrory v. Rochester 393 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Jones v. Meinke 357 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Blackmore v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 347 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • O'CONNOR v. Terry 346 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Kontomitras v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.App.
  • Carlton v. Great Am. Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    32:81 the medical and lay testimony adduced at the trial could reasonably have been interpreted by the jury as *684 failing to establish the requisite causal link between an act of negligence on the part of Moynan and Carlton's alleged disabilities.
  • Doucas v. Universal Underwriters Insurance 334 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Eubanks v. Brasseal 318 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    The Supreme Court granted writs of review and reversed the judgment of this court, .