Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Eichorn v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co., 36 So. 335.

16 citing documents.

Renz v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company 138 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
[236,] 237, , 104 Am.St.Rep.
McFarland v. Illinois Central Railroad Company 122 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Wolfson v. Succession of Lisso 13 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1943
Light Power Co., , 36 So.
Broussard v. Hotard 4 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Eggleston v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co. 192 So. 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Our last expressed opinion does not seem to be in conflict with the doctrine announced in Eichorn v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 36 So.
Pierce v. Robertson 182 So. 544 La. 1938
625 ; Eichorn v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 36 So.
Johnson v. Sundbery 150 So. 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Norton v. Crescent City Ice Mfg. Co., Inc. 146 So. 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Not only does it appear that they were fortified in their decision by our opinion in Reed v. Warren, but, as we then interpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Eichorn v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 36 So.
Reed v. Warren 136 So. 59 La. 1931
Carrollton Railroad Co., it is a significant fact that no one, heretofore, in the seventy-six years that have elapsed since the statute of 1855 was enacted, has attempted to split the right of action given by that statute or by the act of 1884, and bring two or more suits for one and the same cause of action, except in the one instance noted in Eichorn v. N. O. & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 36 So.
Reed v. Warren 132 So. 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
In the case of Eichorn v. N. O. & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 36 So.
Bloxom v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. 131 So. 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Polizzi v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. 131 So. 611 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
The evidence is conclusive that the crossing in question was a dangerous crossing and in reference to such a , 36 So.
Peart v. Orleans-Kenner Traction Co. 123 So. 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
So, where the crossing is especially dangerous on account of its locality or mode of construction, or because the view is restricted or the track i's curved, it is the duty of the company to exercise such care and take such precautions as the dangerous nature of the crossing requires.” Eichorn vs. N. O. & C. R., L. & P. Co., , 38 So.
Johnson v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. 5 La. App. 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
In the case of Eichhorn vs. Rrd., , 36 So.
Wallace v. Tremont & G. Ry. Co. 74 So. 179 La. 1917
In the case of Eichorn v. New Orleans & C. Ry., Light & Power Co., , 36 South.
New Orleans C.R. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. 38 So. 89 La. 1905
See Eichorn v. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad Light & Power Company, , 36 South.