Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hamburger v. Katz, 120 So. 391.

32 citing documents.

Emmco Insurance Co. v. Alexander 224 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1969
215 , ; Lawson v. Nossek, 15 La.App.
Nelson v. Zurich Insurance 165 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
215 , ; Monkhouse v. Johns (La.App.), 142 So.
Duane v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Company 148 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
Coleman v. Continental Southern Lines 107 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
215 , ; Dawson v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 15 La.App.
Williams v. US Royal Tires 101 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Lebo v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance 99 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 97 So. 2d 389 La. 1957
215 , ; Monkhouso v. Johns, La.
Harris v. Varnado 94 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 91 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Texas Mutual Ins. v. Stutes 84 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
215 , ; Lawson v. Nossek, 15 La.App.
Rauscholb v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc. 81 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Oppenheim v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., ; Hamburger v. Katz, 10 La.App., 215 , ; Dawson v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 15 La.App.
Fetterly v. McNeely 77 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
215 , ; Lawson v. Nossek, 15 La.App.
Murphy v. Henderson 23 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Gross v. Teche Lines, Inc. 21 So. 2d 378 La. 1945
Oppenheim v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 7 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Levy v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America 8 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Nuss v. MacKenzie 4 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
215 , , 393, we quoted the following from Berry on Automobiles, 4th Ed., page 216: "`The doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" may be applied in actions seeking to recover *West Page 848 for injuries due to the operation of automobiles.
Harrelson v. McCook 198 So. 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Polmer v. Polmer 181 So. 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Weddle v. Phelan 177 So. 407 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1937
215 , ; Monkhouse v. Johns (La.App.)
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia 173 So. 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Wolfe v. Baumer Food Products Co. 171 So. 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Chustz v. Negrotto 165 So. 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
215 , ; Biaggini v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. (La.App.)
Biaggini v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 163 So. 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
App. 215 , , 394, which, so far as the question of quantum is concerned, presents facts somewhat similar to those found here, except that here the life expectancy of the deceased would have been somewhat shorter than was that of Mrs. Hamburger.
Galbraith v. Dreyfus 162 So. 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Richard v. Roquevert 148 So. 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
App. 215 , , Christos v. Manos, 16 La.
Monroe v. D'Aunoy 143 So. 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
App. 215 , , 393, we said: “An automobile, properly driven at moderate speed over the public road under the conditions obtaining in this case, would have held the road in the ordinary course of things, and the fact that the automobile driven by Katz catapulted over the embankment, and rolled over two or three times before coming
Monkhouse v. Johns 142 So. 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
App. 215 , , is on all fours with the instant case.
Richard v. Roquevert 137 So. 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
App. 215 , , the allegations of negligence against the defendant were as follows: “* * * The said defendant Harry Katz being guilty of negligence in operating his automobile at a rate of speed of more than 30 miles per hour, in loose gravel, about two feet from the edge of the steep embankment of the road at that point and
Dawson v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 131 So. 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Lawson v. Nossek 130 So. 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Chopin v. Levy 125 So. 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
App. 215 , , in which case counsel for plaintiff frankly admitted that the suit was filed only because the host, who was the son-in-law of the deceased mother-in-law, was protected by insurance.