Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia, 173 So. 537.

17 citing documents.

Torrey v. Chauvin 297 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
App., 4th Cir.-1954); and Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia, La.App., , Aff., 188 La.
Shively v. Hare 189 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Also see the comment of the court along this line in the cases of Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia et al., La.App., , and Jacobs v. Jacobs, 141 La.
Pardue v. Norred 95 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
447 ; Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Saia, La.App.1937, ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, La.App.1947, ; Plaquemines Parish School Board v. Davis, La.App.1947, ; Allen v. Joshlin, La.App.1953, ; Hubble v. Bourg, La.App.1953, ; La Rocca v. Dabria, La.App.1955, .
Monteleone v. Dularge Packing Co. 73 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1954
The doctrine of Louisiana Power & , decided by this Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, 188 La.
Watts v. Spikes 60 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
“In the case of Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia et al., La.App., , the court stated in effect that a great many cases have held that the failure of the driver of a moving vehicle to observe an obstruction— usually in the form of a stationary vehicle — constituted such negligence as would prevent recovery, and cited many cases to that effect; but, the court aptly said in effect that
Randazzo v. Falgout 54 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1951
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia, La.App., and Arbo v. Schulze, La.App., 173 So.
Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co. 40 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
App., ; Woodley Collins v. Schusters' Wholesale Produce Co., 170 La.
Radovich v. Stipelcovich 32 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1947
469 ; Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia, La.App., ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., .
Hemel v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. 31 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Herring v. Holicer Gas Co. 22 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
App., ; Jacobs v. Jacobs, 141 La.
Gaiennie v. Co-Operative Produce Co. 199 So. 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
“In the case of Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia et al., La.App., , the court stated in effect that a great many cases have held that the failure of the driver of a moving vehicle to observe an obstruction — usually in the form of a stationary vehicle — -constituted such Negligence as would prevent recovery, and cited many cases to that effect; but, the court aptly said in effect th
Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co. 199 So. 377 La. 1940
In the case of Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia et al., La.App., , the court stated in effect that a great many cases have held that the failure of the driver of a moving vehicle to observe an obstruction — usually in the form of a stationary vehicle — constituted such negligence as would prevent recovery, and cited many cases to that effect; but, the court aptly said in effect tha
Cuneo v. Waddell 189 So. 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
See Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia, La.App., , and Arbo v. Schulze, La.App., 173 So.
Williams v. Campbell 185 So. 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
But if the bright lights are brought suddenly into view, and there is no time between the first appearance of the bright lights and the happening of the accident to observe the necessary rules of caution with reference to stopping and pulling to one side, the driver of the automobile cannot be charged with negligence for not stopping.” See, also, Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia, La.App., , Id., 188 La.
Hantel v. Service Drayage Co. 177 So. 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Saia, La.App., , decision of Supreme Court rendered November 2, 1937, 177 So.
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia 177 So. 238 La. 1937
Burmaster v. Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal R. R. of New Orleans 174 So. 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
(decided on April 5, 1937) and Albert Arso, Jr. v. Rudolph Schulze et al. (La.App.)