Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lopes v. Sahuque, 38 So. 810.

38 citing documents.

Jones v. Robbins 289 So. 2d 104 La. 1974
Larkin v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 258 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
[1004], 1011, ; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Jones, 95 U.S. 439, 441 , 24 L.Ed.
Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Co. 137 So. 2d 298 La. 1962
806 ; Lopes *489 v. Sahuque, , 38 So.
Spiers v. Consolidated Companies, Inc. 132 So. 2d 879 La. 1961
[1004], 1011, ; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Jones, 95 U.S. 439, 441 , 24 L.Ed.
Crittenden v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 83 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
Roca v. Prats 80 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
If,, in the opinion of the court, the action of the defendant falls within this zone of prudence, then he has not been negligent and fault is not present.” We also find a , 38 So.
Melton v. Gross & Janes Co. 46 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
State Ex Rel. Marcade v. City of New Orleans 44 So. 2d 305 La. 1949
Anderson v. London Guarantee Accident Co. 36 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
[1004], 1011, ; Baltimore P. R. Co. v. Jones, 95 U.S. 439 , 441, 24 L. Ed. 506 ; 6 Cyc.
General Accident Fire Life Assur. Corp. v. Latiolais 17 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
Bannister v. Chisesi Longo 5 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
O'Neill v. Hemenway 3 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
[1004] 1011, ; Baltimore P.R.
Klotz v. Tru-Fruit Distributors 173 So. 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Schmidt & Zeigler, Ltd. v. Carroll 161 So. 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Upton v. Bell Cabs, Inc. 154 So. 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Haley v. Black 152 So. 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
20 R. C. L. p. 43, § 37; , 38 So.
Bethancourt v. Bayhi 141 So. 111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
116 , decided by this court March 7, 1932; , 38 So.
Viator v. Talbot 137 So. 84 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1931
McGehee v. Ashley 137 So. 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Lucas v. Andress 136 So. 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Denham v. Taylor 131 So. 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
He also contends that the obiter dictum found in the Buckner case is opposed to the rule of law he invokes, , 38 So.
Lipscomb v. Standard Highway Co. 124 So. 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Lopes vs. Sahuque, , 38 So.
General Securities Co. v. City of Hammond 123 So. 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
1005 , , that an act violative of a city ordinance is not sufficient of itself to give cause of action for damages in favor of a citizen who gets hurt, where the damage especially is not of the kind which the ordinance was intended to avoid.
Newsom v. I. C. R. R. 122 So. 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
1005 , ; Adams vs. Arkansas L. & G. Ry.
Smith v. City of Baton Rouge 117 So. 559 La. 1928
Smith v. City of Baton Rouge 119 So. 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
This doctrine applies with peculiar force to the facts of this case which show that the arrangements made by defendant company had proved sufficient to meet the requirements of its duty.” The principle above outlined was in a nebulous way recognized by our Court in Lopez vs. Sahuque, , 38 So.
Ainsworth v. Murphy 5 La. App. 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
409 ; Lopez vs. Sahuque, , 38 South 810 ; Lynch vs. Knoop, 118 La.
Hudson v. Jackson Brewing Co. 4 La. App. 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
But the excessive speed was not the cause of the collision, as we shall show hereafter and the violation of an ordinance cannot be charged as negligence unless it was the cause of the accident.” Lopez vs. Schique, , 38 So.
Belden v. Roberts 3 La. App. 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Lopez vs. Sahuque, , 38 South.
Ellzey v. Booth Furniture & Carpet Co. 2 La. App. 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
In Lopes vs. Suhuque, , 38 South.
Morris v. Hankins 2 La. App. 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
S. M. Jones Co. vs. Hoffman, , 38 South.
McManemin v. Malone 1 La. App. 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Lopez vs. Suhugne, , 38 South.
Caillier v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. 120 So. 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1921
1011 , ; Baltimore & P. R. Co. vs. Jones, 95 U. S. 439, 441 , 24 L. Ed. 506 ; 6 Cyc.
Lapouyade v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. 70 So. 110 La. 1915
Keplinger v. Barrow 61 So. 217 La. 1913
Prior to the adoption of Act 92, p. 150, of •1900, and Act 106, p. 163, of 1908, the three ¡days of grace in question were judicial days ( , 38 South.
Adams v. Arkansas, L. & G. Ry. Co. 53 So. 865 La. 1910
Darsam v. Kohlmann 48 So. 781 La. 1909
Winterhaler v. Hoffman 43 So. 980 La. 1907