DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Thomas v. Roberts, 144 So. 70.

27 citing documents.

  • Correge v. Webb 284 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
    Certainly, (Orl., La.App.1932), relied on by the applicants, and we deem Thomas impliedly overruled by Bourgeois.
  • Bettis v. Paulsen-Webber Cordage Corp. 217 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    2d 563 ; Daniel v. New Orleans Public Service, La.App., ; Lindsay v. Shreveport Laundries, La.App., ; Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., .
  • Fruge v. Aetna Insurance 194 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    We so stated in Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., .
  • Roeling v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Insurance 125 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Moore v. Shreveport Transit Co., La.App., ; Evans v. Walker, La.App., ; Mullins v. Seals, La.App., ; Russell v. Bourgeois, La.App., ; Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., .
  • Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance 111 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    obligation upon a motorist on a right of way street to exercise a mere slight care and precaution in observing approaching traffic, and where plaintiff’s driver did not at all look for approaching traffic, but merely straight ahead and did not see that which was there for her to see, she did not exercise the slightest care in that regard.” Such was also the holding in Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., .
  • Platt v. Scarborough 108 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    195 ; Sullivan v. Locke, La.App., ; Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., .
  • Commercial Credit Corporation v. Morris 107 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
    Sullivan v. Locke, La.App., ; Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., supra.
  • Allstate Insurance Co. v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 98 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    See Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La.
  • Youngblood v. Allstate Insurance Co. 98 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    To the same effect is Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., , and Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La.
  • Sullivan v. Locke 73 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    In Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., , it was held that a motorist who drove into an intersection without looking for the approach of other vehicles and was struck by a truck that entered the intersection at excessive speed against a red light in violation *622 of city ordinance, was contributorily negligent, precluding recovery.
  • Daniel v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 61 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
  • Lawrence v. Sansone 48 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    In Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., , the situation was almost the same, with two slight but important differences.
  • Sangree v. Grilletta 42 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    We so stated in Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., .
  • Lewis v. Groetsch 32 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    which has been approved many times since, and which had, in fact, been recognized before we rendered that decision.
  • Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc. 24 So. 2d 292 La. 1945
    In deciding this case, , holding that a motorist who enters an intersection on a favorable light without looking for approaching vehicles and is struck by another vehicle entering the intersection at an excessive speed against a red light is guilty of contributory negligence.
  • Fitzpatrick v. New Orleans Public Service 22 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Seiner v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 18 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1944
    and Mrs. Virginia Culotta Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., La.App., , but that principle has application only where it appears that the conditions were such that a person exercising only slight care would have noticed the other vehicle, and that where it appears also that had the other vehicle been notice
  • Kientz v. Charles Dennery 17 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    It is contended on behalf of plaintiffs that there should be applied here the doctrine which was applied in the case of Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., , which is to the effect that when a driver is crossing an intersection on a favorable light, he cannot close his eyes to obvious *Page 509 danger and proceed across if by a mere glance, which a person exercising only ordinary care might make, he would have seen that there was danger from another vehicle crossing in v
  • Capillon v. Lengsfield 171 So. 194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    App.) is strikingly similar to the case at bar with respect to the negligence of the defendant in this case.
  • McCormick Co. v. Cauley 168 So. 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    in which we expressed views to which we still adhere in spite of adverse criticism on page 463, volume 7, Tulane Law Review, a journal for which we have profound respect.
  • Manuel v. Bradford 166 So. 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
  • Mejheardt v. Reboul 158 So. 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
  • Upton v. Bell Cabs, Inc. 154 So. 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    App.) ; Bacon v. N. O. Public Service, Inc., 18 La.
  • Holderith v. Zilbermann 151 So. 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    App.) , plaintiff sued the defendant claiming prop-' erty damages alleged to have been sustained in a collision with the defendant’s truck.
  • Pugh v. Henritzy 151 So. 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    App.) ; Goff v. Southern Coffee Mills (La.
  • Long v. White 149 So. 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
  • Smith's Tutorship v. Perrin 145 So. 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933