Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Randall v. Ridgley, 185 So. 632.

17 citing documents.

Bond v. Toriello 260 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
456 (1932); (La.App.Orls.
Bauman v. Heausler 188 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
Smith v. Foucha 172 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Baughman v. Wells 171 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
The views expressed by us in Randall v. Ridgley, La.App., and in Bacas v. Laswell, La.App., , are consistent with this conclusion.” * * * * * * "The reason is that one who uses zvords, or actions which it may be expected will bring abotct an attempt at retaliation has only himself to blame, if as a result of the attempt at retaliation he, himself, is injured.
Moore v. Travelers Insurance Co. 143 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
The views expressed by us in Randall v. Ridgley, La.App., and in Bacas v. Laswell, La.App., , are consistent with this conclusion.” * * * * ‡ “If this reasoning is sound then, in an effort to determine who is responsible as the aggressor in an affray which is • commenced by words, it becomes necessary to determine whether the words were such as to justify the co
Wilson v. Dimitri 138 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
456 ; Randall v. Ridgley, La.App., ; Bacas v. Laswell, La.App., ; Bethley v. Cochrane, La.App., .
McInnis v. Terry 121 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
1 Cir., ; "Nor does it apply against the original aggressor after his bona fide and reasonably perceivable retirement from the affray, or attempt to do so, *334 when the original victim pursues the original aggressor and assaults the latter after his retreat, Oakes case, supra cit., Randall v. Ridgley, La.App.Orleans, , cf. LSA-R.S.
Davis v. Maddox 100 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Randall v. Ridgley, La.App., and in Bacas v. Laswell, La.App., , are consistent with this conclusion.’ “The ruling in Gross v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., La.App., 25 So.
Landry v. Gilger Drilling Company 92 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Ayo v. Stephens 92 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
1939, ; McVay v. Ellis, 1921, 148 La.
Reber v. Sandoz 63 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
* * * ’ “(See also the case of Randall v. Ridgley, La.App., p. 633 , wherein the Court quoted from American Jurisprudence Vol.
Smith v. Parker 59 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
"The views expressed by us in Randall v. Ridgley, La.App., and in Bacas v. Laswell, La.App., , are consistent with this conclusion."
Esnault v. Richard 53 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
783, 784 , in which the Court declared : “The obj ectionable epithet was not sufficient cause or provocation for the assault and battery administered by defendant upon plaintiff”.- *502 Also cited is the case of Randall v. Ridgley, La.App., , in .which case the Court stated: “ * * * It is difficult to understand how Ridgley could have shot at the ground and hit Randall, but we do not regard the matter as important, for, in either event, the question is whether the -situation warranted the use of
Gross v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. 25 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
App., and in Bacas v. Laswell, La.
Bacas v. Laswell 22 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
App., , which are cited by plaintiff, are in conflict with the well-established jurisprudence in assault and battery cases and, furthermore, that the facts appearing in those matters are distinguishable from the facts of the case at bar.
Ponthieu v. Coco 18 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
He further alleges that the defendant, Willard Coco, was the aggressor from the time plaintiff addressed him in a conciliatory tone up to the time of the shooting, and that plaintiff at no time provoked the difficulty, and cited as his authorities therefor some Louisiana jurisprudence and especially the case of Randall v. Ridgley [La.App]., ; the American Jurisprudence, Vol.
Wade v. Gennaro 8 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
The law on the subject is, as pointed out by us in our opinion in the case of Randall v. Ridgley, La.App., , that "one who is himself in fault cannot recover damages for a wrong resulting from such fault, although the party inflicting the injury was not justified under the law.