Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hemel v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co., 31 So. 2d 38.

14 citing documents.

Miller v. Kinney 213 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
238 (1937); Goodwin v. Theriot, 165 So.
PIGGLY-WIGGLY OP. WRHSE. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 174 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
377 (1940); Hemel v. United States Fidelity & *210 Guaranty Co., , La.App., Orleans 1947.
LeNormand v. Hardware Mutuals Insurance 163 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
1 ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., .” There are many other authorities from this and other jurisdictions to the same effect which .we-deem unnecessary to cite here.
Ellis v. Nola Cabs, Inc. 124 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co., La.App., ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., ; Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 196 La.
Pardue v. Norred 95 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
537 ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, La.App.1947, ; Plaquemines Parish School Board v. Davis, La.App.1947, ; Allen v. Joshlin, La.App.1953, ; Hubble v. Bourg, La.App.1953, ; La Rocca v. Dabria, La.App.1955, .
Noland v. Liberty Mutual Ins. 89 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co., La.App., ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., ; Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 196 La.
Washington Fire & Marine Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 86 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co., La.App., ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., ; Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 196 La.
King v. Rabalais 79 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
It was his duty to’ have seen the trailer in time to avoid running into it and no valid reason in law is given, nor does any appear, why he did not timely see ‡ ‡ » *142 In Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co., La.App., , the Court said: ; “In Hemel v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, supra, we said (La.App., ): ‘While in innumerable cases it has been held that regardless of the primary negligence of the person who has left the other vehicle or obstruction in the road, the failure
Sedotal v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 77 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1954
Woodall v. Southern Scrap-Material Co., La.App., ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., ; Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 196 La.
King v. Risdon & WE Holoman Lumber Company 76 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
238 ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 1947, ; McCann v. Dixon, La.App., 1951, ; Capitol Transport Co., Inc. v. Blossman, Inc., 1951, 218 La.
Finley v. Guidroz 58 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1952
“The Court has examined the Albright v. Tatum [La.App., ] and the Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company [La.App., ] cases, as well as numerous other decisions, and applying the law as set down in the cases, must conclude that the plaintiff under the facts and the law and jurisprudence applicable, is not entitled to recover.
Buford v. Combs 50 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Company, La.App., ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., ; Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 196 La.
Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co. 40 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Radovich v. Stipelcovich 32 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1947
537 ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., .