Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bailey v. National Surety Corporation, 149 So. 2d 669.

14 citing documents.

Landry v. Bill Garrett Chevrolet, Inc. 443 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Parr v. Vicari 400 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Politz v. Traders & General Insurance Co. 285 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
1st Cir. 1962); (La.App.
Tallo v. Johnson 255 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Meskill v. Allstate Insurance Co. 247 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Kierum v. Stonewall Insurance Co. 247 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Bauer v. Bauer 211 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
This Court held in Bailey v. National Surety Corporation, La.App., as follows: “Further, it is a well settled principle of Louisiana jurisprudence that when a collision results from one’s act of driving his vehicle into that part of the roadway reserved exclusively for traffic proceeding from the opposite direction, the presumption is that the driver of the vehicle determined to be i
Smith v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 189 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Vordenbaumen v. Sweeney, La.App., (1964), Bailey v. National Surety Corporation, La.App., (1963).
Carter v. Connecticut Fire Insurance 184 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
App., , Little v. Safeguard Insurance Company, La.App., and Scott v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, La.App., .
Duet v. Cheramie 176 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
See Fullilove v. United States Casualty Company of New York, La.App., ; Bailey v. National Surety Corporation, La.App., ; Coody v. Nicholson, La.App., .
Vordenbaumen v. Sweeney 169 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Bailey v. National Surety Corporation, La.App., .
Jones v. Continental Casualty Co. of Chicago 159 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Bailey v. National Surety Corp. 151 So. 2d 689 La. 1963
Bailey v. National Surety Corp. 149 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
For the reasons this day assigned in the case of Newman et al. v. Bailey et al., La.App., , the judgment in this case is hereby affirmed.