Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bell v. Feibleman & Co., 164 So. 273.

21 citing documents.

White v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 270 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
460 ; Bell v. *634 Feibleman & Co., Inc., La.App.1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.
Harper v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 257 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
460 ; Bell v. Feibleman & Co., Inc., La.App.1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.1933, 148 So.
Jarvis v. Prout 247 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
604 ; Bell v. Feibleman & Co., La.App., ; and Lawson v. D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd., La.App., 200 So.
Lang v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 230 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.1933, 148 So.
Barker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 230 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
460 ; Bell v. Feibleman & Co., Inc., La.App.1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.1933, 148 So.
Fish v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 205 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
460 ; Bell v. Feibleman & Co., Inc., La.App.1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App., 1933, 148 So.
Bennett v. Sears 183 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Negligence § 103, page 647: “ ‘Proximate cause,’ it has been said, is one in which is involved the idea of necessity, and one from which the effect must follow, while ‘remote cause,’ although necessary for the existence of the effect, is one the existence of which does not necessarily imply the existence of the effect.” In Bell v. Feibleman & Co. Inc. (La.App.1935) , the plaintiff was injured as the result of falling over the platform of an automatic weighing machine located near the passage
Burson v. Pak-A-Sak Service Stores, Inc. 169 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.1933, 148 So.
Smith v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 166 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
460 ; Bell v. Feibleman & Co., Inc., La.App.1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.1933, 148 So.
Gibson v. J. C. Penney Co. 165 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
460 ; Bell v. Feibleman & Co., Inc., La.App.1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.1933, 148 So.
Gammill v. J. C. Penny Co. 156 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
460 ; Bell v. Feibleman & Co., Inc., La.App.1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.1933, 148 So.
Stillwell v. Winn-Dixie Hill, Inc. 146 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
460 ; Bell v. Feibleman & Co., Inc., La.App.1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.1933, 148 So.
Knight v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 142 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
460 ; Bell v. Feibleman & Co., Inc., La.App.1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.1933, 148 So.
Meyerer v. SH Kress and Co. 89 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.
Peters v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 72 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
460 ; Bell v. Feibleman & Co., Inc., La.App.1935, ; Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.
Boucher v. Paramount-Richards Theatres 30 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
App., ; Bartell v. Serio, La.
De Latour v. Roosevelt Hotel 1 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
604 ; Bell v. Feibleman Co., La.App., ; and Lawson v. D.H.
Lawson v. D. H. Holmes Co. 200 So. 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
604 ; and Bell v. Feibleman & Co., La.App., .
Battles v. Wellan 195 So. 663 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1940
390 ; and Bell v. Feibleman & Company, Inc., La.App., .” In Farrow v. Thompson Company, 18 La.App.
Powell v. L. Feibleman & Co. 187 So. 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
In Bell v. Feibleman & Co., Inc., , this Court held as appears from the following syllabus : “Storekeeper is not the guarantor of safety of his patrons.
Bartell v. Serio 180 So. 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
390 , and Bell v. Feibleman & Co., Inc., La.App., .