Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McClanahan v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co., 35 So. 902.

18 citing documents.

Gregoire v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. 158 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Shipp v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. in Trusteeship 188 So. 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
p. 449.” See also, McClanahan v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co., , 35 So.
Pinckley v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 165 So. 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Dowling v. Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal R. 154 So. 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
782 , , and others following the doctrine of that Case (Jones v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 162 La.
Loewenberg v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co. 147 So. 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
782 , ; Jones v. Mackay Tel.
Buckley v. Featherstone Garage, Inc. 123 So. 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Gibson v. T. & P. Ry. Co. 121 So. 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Canal Steel Works, Inc. v. City of New Orleans 121 So. 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Johnson v. Boyle 5 La. App. 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Croft v. Southern Hardwood Lumber Co. 7 La. App. 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Parlongue v. Leon 6 La. App. 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
If there were any difficulties against seeing, this was all the more reason why greater care should have been used.” McClanahann vs. R. Rd., , 35 South.
Jones v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 111 So. 62 La. 1926
785 , ; McGuire v. V. S. & P. R. Co., 46 La.
Dill v. Colley 3 La. App. 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
379 ; McClanahan vs. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co., , 35 South.
Burton v. Illinois Central Railroad 3 La. App. 362 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1925
This is not a parallel to McClanahan vs. V. S. & P. Ry., , 35 South.
Gouzien v. Feraci 2 La. App. 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Trentecoste v. French Market Ice Co. 6 Pelt. 191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1922
McClanahan vs. Railway Co. .
Roberts v. Louisiana Ry. & Navigation Co. 61 So. 522 La. 1913
The doctrine of this case was adopted by this court in the McClanahan Case, , 35 South.
Gilliam v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 38 So. 166 La. 1905
Plaintiff’s counsel refers in his brief to the decision of the court in McClanahan v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co., , 35 South.