DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co., 50 So. 544.

40 citing documents.

  • American Security Insurance v. Insurance Co. of North America 220 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co., 1 , 50 So.
  • Younger v. American Radiator & Standard San. Corp. 193 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Ford v. Morgan 144 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    As stated in Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Williams v. Langston 138 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    ugh an automobile owner, whose car has been damaged by a tort feasor, has received from his insurer the total amount of his claim for damage, he may, nevertheless, maintain against the tort feasor a claim for the damage provided the tort feasor has not been formally notified that the claim has been assigned to someone else * See also Hanton et al. v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Mahaffey v. Benoit 118 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
  • Moncrieff v. Lacobie 89 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    However, the insurer is not a necessary party in an action by its insured against a third party tortfeasor, and a recovery by the insured of the entire damage sustained will be upheld, even though the insurer has paid and has thereby become subrogated to part of the aforesaid damages, Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Marmol v. Wright 62 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    such a debtor is notified of such partial assignment and takes no position one way or the other, it must be assumed that he has not expressly agreed to the division of his obligation and that, therefore, in a subsequent suit by the original debtor for the entire amount, he cannot be heard to object and that it will be assumed, as it was in Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Taylor v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 55 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1951
    Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • De Roode v. Jahncke Service 52 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    See, also, Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Stein v. Williams Lumber Co. 36 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
  • Gray v. Security Storage Van Co. 26 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
  • Thompson v. Kivett Reel 25 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
  • Dupuy v. Graeme Spring Brake Service 19 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
  • Dupuy v. Graeme Spring Brake Service 17 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1944
    In Hanton et al. v. New Orleans, etc., Light Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Wolfson v. Succession of Lisso 13 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1943
    Light Power Co., , 50 So.
  • German v. City of New Orleans 3 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    Light Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Lopez v. Bertel 198 So. 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    As apparent authority for the view that the subrogation did not make two claims where only one existed before, we find interesting Hanton v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. R. Light & Power Company, , 50 So.
  • Ayres v. Wyatt 185 So. 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    In point is Hanton v. N. O. & C. R. L. & P. Co., , 50 So.
  • Pierce v. Robertson 182 So. 544 La. 1938
    587 ; Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Cain v. Jones 147 So. 489 La. 1933
    Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Ratcliff v. Levin 143 So. 1 La. 1932
    “The burden [of proof] rests on an appellant to show, to the satisfaction of this court, that the judgment of which he complains is erroneous.” Hanton v. N. O. & C. Ry., L. & P. Co., , 50 So.
  • Meyers v. George 141 So. 59 La. 1932
    729 , the syllabus is as follows: “Judgment based on conflicting evidence and not manifestly erroneous will be affirmed.” In this connection we cite Hanton v. N. O. & C. R. L. & P. Co., , 50 So.
  • Mills v. Mills 138 So. 671 La. 1931
    Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R. L. & P. Co., , 50 So.
  • Mills v. Mills 138 So. 671 La. 1931
    Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R. L. & P. Co., , 50 So.
  • Reed v. Warren 136 So. 59 La. 1931
    In Hanton et al. v. N. O. & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Baptiste v. N. O. Pub. Service, Inc. 127 So. 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    Hanton vs. N. O. & C. R. L. & P. Co., , 50 So.
  • Cody v. Vergez 123 So. 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    And that burden is not discharged, in a case involving only issues of fact, by the appellant merely pointing out that the evidence is conflicting and that the trial judge or jury might, on such conflicting evidence, have reached a different conclusion,” citing Hanton v. N. O. & C. R. L. & P. Co., , 50 So.
  • Franz v. N. O. Coffee Co. 8 La. App. 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    Hanton, et al., vs. New Orleans and Carrollton R. L. and P. Company, , 50 So.
  • Rigaud v. Garvey 8 La. App. 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    603 ; Hanton, et al. vs. N. O. & C. R. Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Livingood v. Planters Oil Mineral Co. 8 La. App. 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    “On appeal in cases involving only issues of fact, findings of the trial court will not be disturbed, unless manifest error is pointed out, and showing of conflicting testimony is not sufficient.” *39 Hanton vs. Railway Co., , 62 So.
  • Pisciotte v. Indemnity Co. of America 113 So. 840 La. 1927
    Hanton v. N. O. & C. R. L. & P. Co., , 50 So.
  • Davitt v. Long-Bell Farm Land Corporation 110 So. 88 La. 1926
    L. & P. Co., , 50 So.
  • First Nat. Bank of Miami v. Jefferson Const. Co. 110 So. 84 La. 1926
    280 ; Hanton v. Light & Power Co., , 50 So.
  • Grau v. Consolidated Dredging & Mfg. Co. 110 So. 202 La. 1926
  • Hendren v. Crescent City Seltzer & Mineral Water Co. 1 La. App. 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    App.; Hanton vs. N. O. Light & Power Company, , 50 South.
  • Henican v. Woodman 1 La. App. 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
    In the case of Hanton vs. N. O. Light and Power Co.; , 50 South.
  • Smith v. Richland Compress & Warehouse Co. 96 So. 668 La. 1923
    603 ; Hanton v. Railway & Light Co., , 50 South.
  • U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Mauthe 5 Pelt. 470 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1922
    The validity of transfers of damage claims by the insured to the insurer aften payment of loss by the latter bs,s been recognized in Haviton vs N. O. Light & Power Co. .
  • Elias v. Mayor of New Iberia 69 So. 141 La. 1915
    In Hanton v. N. O. & Carrollton R., L. & P. Co., , 50 South.
  • Colovich v. National Fish & Oyster Co. 8 Teiss. 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1910
    In Hanton vs. N. O. & C. R., Light & Power Co., , plaintiff had suffered a loss through fire caused by defendant’s negligence.