DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Champagne v. McDonald, 355 So. 2d 1335.

22 citing documents.

  • Bernard v. City of Lafayette 735 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    3 Cir. 12/11/96); (quoting Champagne y. McDonald, -44 (La.App.
  • Butcher v. City of Monroe 737 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Jenkins v. Rougeau 702 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    3 Cir. 12/11/96); -56 (-44 (La.App.
  • United Bilt Homes, Inc. v. Schmitt 699 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    App. 3d Cir.1979); (La.App.
  • Baudoin v. Opie 685 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Horn v. City of Lafayette 578 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • Lee v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 566 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    App. 4th Cir.1985); (La.App.
  • Bufkin v. Mid-American Indem. Co. 528 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    4th Cir.1985), writ denied, (La.App.
  • Gabel v. Presswood 504 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    All that is required is that the favored motorist maintain a general observation of the controlled intersection ...” (La.App.
  • Ortigo v. Merritt 488 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    All that is required is that the favored motorist maintain a general observation of the controlled intersection....'" (La.App.
  • Stephens v. Stephens Truck Lines, Inc. 478 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    “The duty of a motorist on entering [an] intersection controlled by a semaphore exhibiting a (La.App.
  • Guerra v. Karam 449 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Jones v. Winston 437 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    All that is required is that the favored motorist maintain a general observation of the controlled intersection....'" (La.App.
  • McCoy v. Chambers 403 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    Addressing generally the duty of a motorist approaching an intersection controlled by a semaphore signal, when the light facing him is green, stated: "A motorist approaching an intersection controlled by semaphore signals, who is favored by a green light, is entitled to assume that traffic approaching the intersection from either side on a red light will comply with the red light and respect his right-of-way.
  • Clay v. Bituminous Cas. Corp. 401 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Garrison v. State, Through Dept. of Highways 401 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    App. 3rd Cir. 1980); (La.App.
  • Parker v. Kroger's, Inc. 394 So. 2d 1178 La. 1981
  • Palmer v. State 393 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Putt v. Daussat 381 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    4th Cir., 1971); (La.App.
  • Gaspard v. Stutes 380 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    The law requiring a motorist's duty when approaching an intersection controlled by a semaphore signal, who is favored by a green light, (La.App.
  • Cassity v. Williams 373 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
  • McDonald v. Champagne 355 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    For the reasons assigned in the companion case of Percy A. Champagne, Jr. v. Dorothy G. McDonald, and Fireman’s Insurance Company, (La.App.