DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite National Rice Milling Co. v. New Orleans & N. E. R., 61 So. 708.

15 citing documents.

  • Colotra v. Railway Express Agency 32 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Close v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 191 So. 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    818; National Rice Milling Co. v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co., , 61 So.
  • Overruled Templeman v. Templeman Bros. 156 So. 824 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1934
    852 ; National Rice Milling Co. v. N. O. & N. E. R. R. Co., , 61 So.
  • Jennings v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 134 So. 694 La. 1931
  • Livaudais v. Black 127 So. 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    505 ; National Rice Milling Co. vs. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. et al., , 61 So.
  • Raphiel v. American Railway Express Co. 120 So. 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    818; National Rice Milling Co. vs. N. O. & N. E. R. Co. et al., , 61 So.
  • Dejean v. Louisiana Western R. Co. 118 So. 822 La. 1928
    287 ; National Rice Milling Co. v. N. O. & N. E. R. Co., , 61 So.
  • Bonura & Co. v. Payne 7 La. App. 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    616 , , as set forth in the following words: “According to law and the jurisprudence of this state, to be relieved from liability the carrier must prove that the loss or damage has been caused by accidental or uncontrollable event and this involves the proposition that the carrier must prove that it was free from fault.” On
  • Japhet & Co. v. Southern Railway Co. 8 La. App. 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    We consider the law of the case settled in this state by the Supreme Court in the case of National Rice Milling Co. vs. N. O. & N. E. R. R. Co., , 61 So.
  • Eatman v. T. & P. R. R. Co. 6 La. App. 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    “According to the law and jurisprudence of this state, to be relieved from the liability the carrier must show that the loss or damage has been occasioned by accidental or uncontrollable events, and this involves the proposition that the carrier must prove it was free from fault.” National Rice Milling Co. vs. N. O. & N. E. R. R. Co., , 61 South.
  • Guidry v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. 6 La. App. 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    *171 The Civil Code should prevail as it is not in conflirt with federal law or jurisprudence.” (651), 234 U. S. 412 , nor with the common law, 10 C. J., p. 132, S. 168, p. 377, note C. “Where the class of goods shipped requires refrigeration it is the duty of the carrier to provide a supply of ice sufficient for the purpose not merely at the point of shipment hut at such places along its line as will reasonably
  • Calhoun v. American Railway Express Co. 3 La. App. 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    National Rice Milling Co. vs. N. O. & N. E. R. R. Co., , 61 South.
  • J. P. Hudson Sons Co. v. Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship 4 Pelt. 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1920
    In the National Rice Milling Co. vs. the N. O. & N. E., , "According to law and jurisprudence of this State, to be relieved from liability the carrier must prove that the loss or damage has been occassioned by accident or uncontrollable event and thi3 involved the proposition that the carrier must prove that it was free from fault".
  • Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. New Orleans & N. E. R. 83 So. 821 La. 1920
    R. C. C. art. 2754; National Rice Milling Co. v. N. O. & N. E. R. R. Co., , 61 South.
  • E. Borneman & Co. v. New Orleans, M. & C. R. 81 So. 882 La. 1919
    National Rice & Milling Co. v. N. O. & N. E. R. Co., , 61 South.