Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power, 53 So. 575.

59 citing documents.

Basil Fisher v. Catahoula Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
In Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., So.
Free v. Franklin Guest Home, Inc. 463 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Light and Power Company, et al., , 127 La.
Holman v. Reliance Ins. Cos. 414 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
The leading authority in this state enunciating the doctrine is Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Hebert v. Town of Ville Platte 373 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
See generally Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light and Power Company, , 53 So.
Veal v. State, Department of Institutions 232 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
The reasons for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are set forth in the leading case on the subject, Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
O'Reilly v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 230 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
690 , ; Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Valentine v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 205 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
See generally Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light and Power Company, , 53 So.
Brechtel v. Gulf States Elevator Corporation 195 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
The reasons for the application of res ipsa loquitur are set forth in the leading case on the subject, Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Nelson v. Zurich Insurance 165 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
347 ; Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co. et al., , 53 So.
National Surety Corp. v. Travelers Insurance Co. 149 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
caused by an agency or instrumentality within the actual or constructive control of the defendant, if the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, and if the evidence as to the true explanation of the accident is more readily accessible to the defendant than to the plaintiff.’ See also Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Company, , 53 So.
Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 148 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
What has often been referred to as the leading case in Louisiana on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is Lykiardo-poulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Vogt v. Hotard 144 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
426 , ; Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Herrin Transportation Co. 136 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Company et al., , 53 So.
Jefferson Davis Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Mike Hooks, Inc. 134 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
caused by an agency or instrumentality within the actual or constructive control of the defendant, if the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, and if the evidence as to the true explanation of the accident is more readily accessible to the defendant, than to the plaintiff.’ See also Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Company, , 53 So.
Dowden v. Bankers Fire & Marine Insurance Company 124 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
11 ; Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C R Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Great American Indemnity Company v. Ford 122 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
690 , ; Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Derouen v. American Employers Insurance 118 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
“It is recognized that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as it exists in this state is correctly set forth in the case of Lykiardopoulo vs New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., et al, , 53 So.
Day v. National-US Radiator Corporation 117 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
In Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Langlinais v. Geophysical Service, Inc. 111 So. 2d 781 La. 1959
the plaintiff.” See also Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Company, , 53 So.
Hawayek v. Simmons 91 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
The leading authority in this state enunciating the doctrine is Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co., , 53 *52 So.
Andrepont v. Ochsner 84 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans *74 & C. R., Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Department of Highways v. Schwabe 79 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
The reasons for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are set forth in the leading case on the subject, Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Arrington v. Hearin Tank Lines 80 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
The argument on both exceptions is directed to the same end and is answered by the ruling on a similar exception in Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light and Power Company, 1910 , 53 So.
Northwestern Mutual Fire Association v. Allain 77 So. 2d 395 La. 1954
See Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Carter v. Middleton 76 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
977 ; Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Leigh v. Johnson-Evans Motors 75 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
In the case of Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Washington v. T. Smith & Son 68 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
The reasons for the doctrine are discussed in the leading case in this State on the subject, Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Patrick v. T. Smith & Sons, Inc. 56 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
The reasons for the rule are discussed in the leading case in this state on the subject, Lykiadopoulo v. N. O. & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Dorman v. T. Smith & Son 55 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
The reasons for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are set forth in the leading case on the subject, Lykiardopoulo v. N. O. & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Guiteau v. Southern Parking Co. 49 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
In Louisiana no one can think of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without recalling the case of Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Lognion v. Peters 44 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Judge Provosty, in his opinion in the case of Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co. et al., , 53 So.
Roy v. Louisiana State Department of Agriculture & Immigration 44 So. 2d 822 La. 1950
As said in Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Company, , 53 So.
Tunnage v. Eddy 42 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1949
We say this because it is obvious that the allegations bring the matter squarely within the rule announced in, , 53 So.
De Cuers v. Crane Co. 40 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Piacun v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 33 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Vallette v. Maison Blanche Co. 29 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
In the oft cited case of Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans C. R., Light Power Co., , 53 So.
Schon v. James 28 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Light Power Co. et al., , 53 So.
Hake v. Air Reduction Sales Co. 28 So. 2d 441 La. 1946
One of the leading and early cases in our jurisprudence involving the doctrine wasLykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
City of Shreveport v. Selber 21 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Gerald v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana 16 So. 2d 233 La. 1943
As said in Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Company, , 53 So.
Franklin v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 13 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Light Power Co. et al., , 310, 53 So.
Harrelson v. McCook 198 So. 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Company et al., , 53 So.
Armstrong v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 188 So. 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
399 ; Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans and C. R. L. & P. Co., et al., , 53 So.
Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc. 185 So. 11 La. 1938
(2) The holding of the trial Judge that plaintiff should also have alleged that the driver of the following car was guilty of negligence “in terms” is in direct conflict with the leading case of Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Wilson v. Iberville Amusement Co. 181 So. 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Company et al., , 53 So.
Weddle v. Phelan 177 So. 407 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1937
347 ; Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co. et al., , 53 So.
Gershner v. Gulf Refining Co. 171 So. 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
See Lykiardopoulo v. N. O. & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Urban Land Co. v. City of Shreveport 162 So. 747 La. 1935
See 9 R. C. L. 1259, 20 R. C. L. 185.” The doctrine is stated substantially the same in 45 C. J. p. 1193, § 768, and was applied in Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad, Light & Power Co., , 53 So.
Monkhouse v. Johns 142 So. 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Ramon v. Feitel House Wrecking Co. 134 So. 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
The leading case in this state involving that doctrine is- Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 53 So.