Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Neyrey v. Maillet, 21 So. 2d 158.

15 citing documents.

Schmeltzer v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc. 215 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Kraft v. U. Koen & Company 188 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
Unlike the case of Neyrey v. Maillet, La.App., , defendant here was not preparing to leave a spot in which he had been parked for some time, but was in the process of backing into a proper parking space for the first time.
Roy v. United Gas Corporation 163 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
1 Cir., ; Robichaux v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App.Orl., ; Neyrey v. Maillet, La.App.Orl., .
Tucker v. Travelers Insurance Company 160 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
787 ; Neyrey v. Maillet, La.App., ; Frazier v. Ayres, La.App., 20 So.
Ratcliff v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania 151 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
1945), ; Hahn v. P. Graham & Co., 148 La.
George v. Shreveport Transit Company 136 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Neff v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co. (La.App.Orl., 1956), ; Neyrey v. Maillet (La.App.Orl., 1945), ; Hahn v. P. Graham & Co., 148 La.
Clark v. Tolbert 134 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Orleans, 1945, , to be: “The law of the case with reference to the precautions a motorist must take when backing his vehicle is clear.
Valentine v. J. D. Marcom Service & Supply Co. 128 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Orleans 1945, , at page 164, the following language was used: “The law of the case with reference to the precautions a motorist must take when backing his vehicle is clear.
Wiley v. Sutphin 108 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
787 ; Neyrey v. Maillet, La.App., ; Frazier v. Ayres, La.App., ; Gunn v. Saenger-Ehrlich Enterprises, Inc., La.App., 192 So.
Lacaze v. Horton 100 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
Co., [La.App.,] ; Neyrey v. Maillet, [La.App.,] ; Smith v. Freeman, [La.App.,] ; Landry v. News-Star-World Pub.
Neff v. Texas Mutual Insurance 85 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
ked in the relatively recent case of Robichaux v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App.1952, , that it is “an imperative legal and moral obligation imposed upon the operator of a motor vehicle, particularly when reversing the movement thereof, to do so slowly and to ascertain that there is no pedestrian or vehicle situated in the rear thereof” and in Neyrey v. Maillet, La.App.1945, , the organ of the Court wrote that “it is, of course, not negligence to back a car.
Fenerty v. Culotta 80 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
2d 286 ; Neyrey v. Maillet, La.App., ; Smith v. Freeman, La.App., ; Landry v. News-Star-World Pub.
Flack v. Margiotta 76 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
“Plaintiff’s counsel rely upon the cases of Robichaux v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. [La.App.], , and Neyrey v. Maillet [La.App.], .
Robichaux v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab 61 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
“To look and not see, what one ■ should see is the equivalent of not looking at all.” : Neyrey v. Maillet, La.App., .
Parker v. Home Indemnity Co. of New York 41 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
App., , 163, is of particular interest in this connection.