DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite O'Rourke v. McConaughey., 157 So. 598.

28 citing documents.

  • Fred Tuckerson Versus Amtrust Insurance Company and Avondale Container Yard, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
  • Charan v. Bowman 965 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • PIGGLY-WIGGLY OP. WRHSE. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 174 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
    195, 197 , La.App., 1st Cir. 1935; , La.App., Orleans 1934; Hutchinson v. T. L. James & Co., 160 So.
  • Standard Casualty Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 162 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    O’Rourke v. McConaughey, La.App., , and cases therein cited.
  • Ardoin v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 133 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    32:241, 32:442; O'Rourke v. McConaughey, La.App.Orleans, ; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App.
  • Ervin v. Burns 126 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    212 ; and O’Rourke v. McConaughey, La.App., ; and authorities there cited.” The conclusion is inescapable, under the evidence, that defendant’s driver was guilty of gross negligence in not seeing plaintiff’s automobile, whether such failure to see was due to blindness induced by the pall of smoke, or to excessive speed.
  • Pardue v. Norred 95 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
    484 ; O'Rourke v. McConaughey, La.App.1934, ; Blahut v. McCahil, La.App.
  • Schneller v. Handy 93 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    App.1934, and cases cited therein; Thiaville v. Toups, La.App.1946, .
  • Burger v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 93 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    212 ; O’Rourke v. McConaughey, 1934, La.App., ; Thiaville v. Toups, 1946, La.App., ; Schneller v. Handy, La.App., .
  • Price-Dunham-Fenet Brick Manufacturing Co. v. Reeves 85 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1956
    212 ; and O’Rourke v. McConaughey, La.App., ; and authorities there ’ cited.” ’ .
  • Monteleone v. Dularge Packing Co. 73 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1954
    O’Rourke v. McConaughey (La.App.), -606; Hutchinson v. [T. L.] James & Co. (La.App.), 160 So.
  • Dixie Highway Express v. CC Galbraith & Son 61 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    * * *" And in O'Rourke v. McConaughey, La.App., , we said: "If fog constitutes `the greatest menace of transportation whether upon land or sea,' it likewise imposes the burden of most extraordinary and unusual care upon the operator of a vessel or vehicle navigating or traveling through the fog."
  • Radovich v. Stipelcovich 32 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1947
    O’Rourke v. McConaughey, La.App., ; Hutchinson v. T. L. James & Co., La.App., 160 So.
  • Hemel v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. 31 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    App., ; Hutchinson v. T. L. James Co. La.
  • Lynch v. Fisher 34 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    App., ; Safety Tire Service v. Murov, 19 La.
  • Thiaville v. Toups 25 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    App., ; and authorities there cited.
  • Giorlando v. Maitrejean 22 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Boland M. M. Co. v. Highway Ins. Underwriters 22 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    App., -606; Hutchinson v. James Co., La.
  • Green v. Kelly, Weber & Co. 183 So. 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
  • Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia 177 So. 238 La. 1937
    -606; Hutchinson v. James & Co. (La.App.)
  • Klotz v. Tru-Fruit Distributors 173 So. 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    Lapeze v. O’Keefe et al. (La.App.)
  • Arbo v. Schulze 173 So. 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    In O’ , 606 we said: “The driver of an automobile has no right to assume that the road before him is open and to proceed ahead without regard to the safety - of those who* may be thereon.
  • Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia 173 So. 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    Hutchinson v. T. L. James & Co. (La.App.)
  • Becker Ex Rel. Becker v. Mattel 165 So. 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    Holcomb v. Perry, 19 La.App.
  • Mansur v. Abraham 164 So. 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    In the case of O’Rourke v. McConaughey reported in , Judge Leche of the Court of Appeal, Orleans, exhaustively reviewed the jurisprudence of this state involving the subject-matter under review therein.
  • Mouton v. W. J. Talbot & Son 161 So. 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    App.) , the court went at length into the discussion of the jurisprudence of this state dealing with automobile accidents of like kind and character as in the case at bar.
  • Hutchinson v. T. L. James & Co. 160 So. 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    212, 213 , we said, in speaking of a similar situation, that “ * * * if the fog affected his [Trauth’s] vision, he should not have maintained a speed of 20 miles an hour knowing that he was driving on a very narrow thoroughfare.” In O’ , a case arising from an accident which occurred on Canal boulevard at a time when traffic was heavy in that section and during a dense fog, this court said: “The driver of an automobile has no right to assume that the road before him is open and to proceed ahead
  • Lapeze v. O'Keefe 158 So. 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    App.) , opinion rendered November 26, 1934, as to the obligations of the driver of an automobile in these circumstances.