DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fontenot v. Freudenstein, 199 So. 677.

24 citing documents.

  • Williams v. City of Baton Rouge 214 So. 2d 138 La. 1968
  • Vincent v. Superior Iron Works & Supply Co. 170 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Lawrence v. Core, La.App., ; Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., .
  • Russ v. Indiana Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance 170 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    See Soileau v. New Hampshire Insurance Company, La.App., ; Barrett v. Houston Fire and Casualty Company, La.App., ; Bechtel v. Oriol, La.App., ; Bordenave v. Texas & New Orleans R. Co., La.App., ; Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., .
  • Soileau v. New Hampshire Insurance Company 160 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    (Orleans App. 1941) the court held as follows: "In the case at bar there is nothing to show that there was anything about the appearance of Fontenot to indicate that he was in any peril.
  • Franicevich v. Lirette 129 So. 2d 740 La. 1961
    In the case of Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., , the Court of Appeal had this to say about the doctrine of discovered peril: “But even the doctrine which has been established by those two cases [Rottman v. Beverly and Jackson v. Cook, both cited supra] requires that there must be something about the appearance or actions of the plaintiff to indicate that he i
  • Franicevich v. Lirette 124 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    It is true that there have been many cases, such as Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., , in which it has been held that the operator of a car, noticing a person near the side of the road or street, may be justified in assuming that that person is aware of the approach of the car and will stop and remain in a safe position, but for the application of that doctrine the actions of the persons must justify
  • Barrett v. Houston Fire & Casualty Co. 108 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1959
    The principle which is applicable here was discussed and applied in Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., .
  • Plauche v. Consolidated Companies 105 So. 2d 269 La. 1958
    App., ; Jenkins v. Firemen’s Ins.
  • Delta Fire & Casualty Co. v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. 86 So. 2d 681 La. 1956
    774 and Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., .
  • Jenkins v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, NJ 83 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    when it declared that a twelve-year old boy was negligent in failing to observe an approaching vehicle and further stated: "* * * and there is nothing to show that he was not of sufficient intelligence to render it proper to say that, as a matter of law, he could be guilty of contributory negligence."
  • Distinguished Deck v. Page 77 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    However, counsel for defendants insist that these doctrines have no application herein and they rely on the conclusions enunciated in Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., ; Bechtel v. Oriol, La.App., and Hall v. Alfortish, La.App., .
  • Whittey v. Locascio 76 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    In Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., , we referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in both of these earlier cases and said that the doctrine announced in Jackson v. Cook should more properly be referred to as the doctrine of apparent peril.
  • Moore v. Nola Cabs 70 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    However, defendants' counsel insist that these doctrines have no application herein and they rely on the conclusions enunciated in Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., ; Bechtel v. Oriol, La.App., ; Duet v. Terrebonne, La.App., ; Bergeron v. Department of Highways, 221 La.
  • Silvera v. Gallardo 63 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    decided by us, the doctrine of apparent peril was also discussed, but plaintiff’s counsel have not cited this case.
  • Hall v. Alfortish 60 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    As we said in the case of Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., , 680: “ * * * Often, in crossing a street, a pedestrian, seeing a car approaching and about to pass in front of him, continues on his course until within a few feet of the path of the car and then stops to allow it to go by.” See also Atchley v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., .
  • Bechtel v. Oriol 52 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    If he did so and if, as he said, he was walking and was looking towards the automobile, then the situation would be controlled by the doctrine announced in Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., , which is to the effect that the doctrine announced in Rottman v. Beverly, supra, and extended in Jackson v. Cook, supra, has no application where the pedestrian is obviously aware- of the approach of the automobile and can easily stop and allow the automobile to pass.
  • Cox v. Gross 47 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    He relies upon Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., , in which a 12 year old boy rancor walked into the street and apparently right' into the side of an automobile.
  • Haywood v. Fidelity Mut. Ins. Co. of Indianapolis 47 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    Defendants rely upon the cases of Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., , and Gauthier v. Foote, La.App., .
  • Atchley v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 35 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1948
    App., , "* * * Often, in crossing a street, a pedestrian, seeing a car approaching and about to pass in front of him, continues on his course until within a few feet of the path of the car and then stops to allow it to go by."
  • Daly v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp. Ltd. 15 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    169 , and Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., .
  • Barnes v. Texas New Orleans R. Co. 16 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    487 , and of the Orleans Court in Fontenot v. Freudenstein et al., La.App., .
  • Cuccia v. White Top Cabs 6 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    239 and Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., , are not in point.
  • Butler v. Oswald 4 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    576 ; Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., .
  • Thompson v. Dyer 1 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    In other words, as stated by our brethren of the Orleans Court of Appeals, , "This doctrine should not be called the doctrine of `discovered peril' because, as the Supreme Court has held, whether there has been an actual `discovery' of the peril of the plaintiff is of no importance.