DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Landry v. Himel, 176 So. 627.

14 citing documents.

  • Porche v. Fernandez 286 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
    1st Cir., 1950), which stands for the following proposition of Law: "Where a Plaintiff provokes a difficulty by insults, abuse, threats, or other conduct calculated to arouse resentment or fear on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover for an assault and battery, although the defendant may not
  • Morneau v. American Oil Company 272 So. 2d 313 La. 1973
    227 (Orl.App.1937): Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Cazebon, 11 So.
  • Wells v. Perkins 101 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    297 ; Landry v. Himel, La.App., ; Finkelstein v. Naihaus, La.App., 151 So.
  • Purnell v. Jackson 91 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    227 ; Landry v. Himel, La.App., ; Betz v. Teche Lines, La.App., ; Sheppard v. Causey, La.App., ; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Cazebon, La.App., ; Manuel v. Ardoin, La.App., ; McCurdy v. City Cab Co., La.App., ; Ogden v. Thomas, La.App., ; Hartfield v. Thomas, La.App., 45
  • Smith v. Bankston 75 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    227 ; Landry v. Himel, La.App., ; Betz v. Teche Lines, La.App., ; Sheppard v. Causey, La.App., ; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Cazebon, La.App., ; Manuel v. Ardoin, La.App., ; McCurdy v. City Cab Company, La.App., ; Ogden v. Thomas, La.App., ; Hartfield v. Thomas, La.App.
  • Brown v. Lambert 71 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
  • Gordon v. Pittman 61 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    686 ; Landry v. Himel, La.App., ; Manuel v. Ardoin, La.App., ; Hartfield v. Thomas, La.App., ; Smith v. Clemmons, Sheriff, La.App., ; Esnault v. Richard, La.App., ; Ogden v. Thomas, La.App., ; Beaucoudray v. Hirsch, La.App., ; Britt v. Merritt, La.App., ; Ponth
  • Smith v. Parker 59 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
    345 ; Landry v. Himel, La.App., 1937, ; Gross v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, La.App., 1946, .
  • Esnault v. Richard 53 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    App., ; Manuel v. Ardoin, La.App., ; Hartfield v. Thomas, La.App., ; Smith v. Clemmons, Sheriff, La.App., .
  • Smith v. Clemmons 48 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    This rule of law was likewise very clearly stated by this court in the case of Landry v. Himel, La.App., , *816 629, in which the plaintiff was barred from recovery because of abusive language toward defendant, accompanied by threatening gestures with her hands, and the court stated: "Where a plaintiff provokes a difficulty by insults, abuse, threats, or other conduct calculated to arouse resentment or fear on the part o
  • Hartfield v. Thomas 45 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    This Court, in the late case of Landry v. Himel, La.App., , held that where a plaintiff provokes a difficulty by insults, abuses and threats or other conduct calculated to arouse resentment or fear on the part of the defendant, plaintiff cannot recover for assault and battery although defendant may not have been justified in law in his conduct.
  • Chisholm v. De Frances 27 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    App., ; Ponthieu v. Coco, La.
  • Manuel v. Ardoin 16 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    this Court stated that "where a plaintiff provokes a difficulty by insults, abuse, threats, or other conduct calculated to arouse resentment or fear on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover for an assault and battery, although the defendant may not have been justified in law in his conduct."
  • Sheppard v. Causey 8 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1942
    297 ; Landry v. Himel, La.App., ; Di Giovanni v. Brodtman, 14 La.App.