DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bacas v. Laswell, 22 So. 2d 591.

14 citing documents.

  • Baughman v. Wells 171 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    632 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.
  • Rivers v. Brown 168 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Orleans, ; Newman v. Southern Kraft Corporation, La.App.
  • Moore v. Travelers Insurance Co. 143 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    632 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 conclusion that it should have been anticipated t
  • Wilson v. Dimitri 138 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    632 ; Bacas v. Laswell, La.App., ; Bethley v. Cochrane, La.App., .
  • McInnis v. Terry 121 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    456 ; Bacas v. Laswell, La.App.Orleans, ; Newman v. Southern Kraft Corporation, La.App.
  • Wells v. Perkins 101 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    1954, ; Allison v. Ivy, La.App., ; Duncan v. Tanner, La.App., ; Carter v. Travelers Insurance Co., La.App., ; Bernard v. Baton Rouge Bus Co., La.App., ; Millet v. B & B Exterminating Co., La.App., ; Bacas v. Laswell, La.App., ; McCurdy v. City Cab Co., La.App., ; Manuel v. Ardoin, La.App., ; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co v. Cazebon, La.App., ; Sheppard v. Causey, La.App., ; Betz v. Teche Lines, La.App., ; Welch v. Van Valkenburgh, La.App., 189 So.
  • Davis v. Maddox 100 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    632 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
    456 ; Bacas v. Laswell, La.App.Orleans, , Newman v. Southern Kraft Corporation, La.App.
  • Ayo v. Stephens 92 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    456 ; Bacas v. Laswell, La.App., ; Gross v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., La.App.1945, 25 So.2d [837] 840; Smith v. Parker, La.App.
  • Bethley v. Cochrane 77 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    App., , where we had occasion to review much of the prior jurisprudence of this state on the subject, we pointed out that, while recovery in Louisiana will not be permitted in assault and battery cases where the plaintiff is the aggressor and the difficulty was brought about through his exclusive fault, this rule will not b
  • Webb v. Globe Indemnity Co. 61 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    257, 258 ; Lindsey v. Gulf Insurance Co., La.App., ; Bacas v. Laswell, La.App., ; Starnes v. Monsour’s #4, La.App., ; Scott v. Claiborne Electric Co-op., La.App., .
  • Smith v. Parker 59 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
    297 ; Betz v. Teche Lines, La.App., ; Sheppard v. Causey, La.App., ; Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Cazebon, La.App., ; Manuel v. Ardoin, La.App., ; Ponthieu v. Coco, La.App., ; Bacas v. Laswell, La.App., .
  • Patterson v. Kuntz 28 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    App., , where we had occasion to review much of the prior jurisprudence of this state on the subject, we pointed out that, while recovery in Louisiana will not be permitted in assault and battery cases where the plaintiff is the aggressor and the difficulty was brought about through his exclusive fault, this rule will not b
  • Gross v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. 25 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    App., , are consistent with this conclusion.