DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite LeJeune v. Union Pacific RR, 712 So. 2d 491.

33 citing documents.

  • Causey v. New Orleans Reg'l Transit Auth. 267 So. 3d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • Explained Thalia Renfro v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rr La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    4/14/98), : 13 As a general rule, motorists approaching a railroad crossing must look and listen for possible oncoming trains before traversing the crossing.
  • Explained Renfro v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. 193 So. 3d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    R.R., 97-1843, p. 6 (La.4/14/98), , 494: Ii4As a general rule, motorists approaching a railroad crossing must look and listen for possible oncoming trains before traversing the crossing.
  • England v. Fifth Louisiana Levee District 167 So. 3d 1105 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific Railroad, 97-1843 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Bellard v. American Cent. Ins. Co. 980 So. 2d 654 La. 2008
    Touchard v. SLEMCO Electric Foundation, 99-3577 (La.10/17/00), (on rehearing); LeJeune v. Union Pacific Railroad, et al. 97-1843 (La.4/14/98); .
  • Cade Harper Howell v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    4/14/98), (citations omitted), has set forth the same premise in relation to motorists approaching a railroad crossing: It is well established in our jurisprudence that a train crew can presume that vehicles approaching railroad crossings will obey the law and stop in time to avoid an accident.
  • Howell v. Union Pacific Railroad 980 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    The supreme court, in LeJeune v. Union Pacific Railroad, 97-1843, p. 8 (La.4/14/98), (citations omitted), has set forth the same premise in relation to motorists approaching a railroad crossing: It is well established in our jurisprudence that a train crew can presume that vehicles approaching railroad crossings will obey the law and stop in time to avoid an accident.
  • Lawrence ex rel. Brown v. Groan 973 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific Railroad, 97-1843 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Hankton v. City of New Orleans 973 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific Railroad, *858 97-1843, p. 6 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Elkins v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. 922 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843 (La.4/14/98), ; Rivere v. Union Pacific R. Co., 93-1132 (La.App.
  • Brule' v. Audubon Commission 902 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific Railroad, 97-1843 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Daniels v. Essex Insurance Co. 890 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Posecai, supra, citingLeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843, p. 6 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Avenal v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources 858 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    v. Coast Quality Const. Corp., 93-1718 (La.5/23/94), ; LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843 (La.4/14/98), ; Lewis v. State, Through Dept. of Trans.
  • Reaux v. Deep South Equipment Co. 840 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843, p. 6 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Henry v. Parish of Jefferson 835 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843, p. 6 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Sunset Insurance Co. v. Gomila 834 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Adams v. Traina 830 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Posecai, supra ; LeJeune v. Union Pacific Railroad, 97-1843 (La.04/14/98), .
  • Randall v. Chalmette Medical Center, Inc. 819 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843, p. 6 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Arnold v. Dufrene 815 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843 (La.4/14/98), , the Supreme Court summarized our mandate in reviewing a jury verdict as follows: The court of appeal may not disturb the conclusions reached by a jury regarding factual matters in the absence of “manifest error” or unless a particular finding of fact was “clearly wrong.” A two-part test is used in making this d
  • Estes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 800 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Recently, in LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843 (La.4/14/98), , the Supreme Court summarized our mandate in reviewing a jury verdict as follows: The court of appeal may not disturb the conclusions reached by a jury regarding factual matters in the absence of “manifest error” or unless a particular finding of fact was “clearly wrong.” A two-part test is used in making this d
  • In Re New Orleans Train Car Leakage Fire Litigation 795 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843, p. 6 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Yocom v. Gleason 792 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific Railroad, 97-1843 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Marmer v. Queen of New Orleans 787 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843, p. 6 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Wilkerson v. Kansas City Southern Ry. 772 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843 (La.4/14/98), ; Rivere v. Union Pacific R. Co., 93-1132 (La.
  • Harris v. Stimac 768 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843, pp. 5-6 (La.4/14/98); .
  • Kendrick v. Louisiana and North West R. Co. 766 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843 (La.4/14/98), ; Rivere v. Union Pacific R. Co., 93-1132 (La.App.
  • Cormier v. Albear 758 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843, p. 6 (La.4/14/98); .
  • Whitehead v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 758 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    R.R., 97-1843, p. 6 (La.4/14/98); ; Syrie v. Schilhab, 96-1027, p. 4-5 (La.5/20/97), -77 .
  • Gautreaux v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 757 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 752 So. 2d 762 La. 1999
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843, p. 6 (La.4/14/98), .
  • Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 747 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    As explained by the supreme court in LeJeune v. Union Pacific R.R., 97-1843 (La.4/14/98); , a duty-risk analysis is used to determine whether liability exists given the particular circumstances of a case.
  • Smith v. Goetzman 720 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific Railroad, 97-1843, p. 5 (La.4/14/98); .
  • Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Browning-Ferris Industries 714 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    LeJeune v. Union Pacific R., 97-1843 (La.4/14/98)