Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jacobs v. Jacobs, 74 So. 992.

86 citing documents.

Waddell v. Langlois 158 So. 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
O'Rourke v. McConaughey. 157 So. 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
A careful research of the jurisprudence reveals the following authorities as pertinent to this case: , 74 So.
Penton v. Fisher 155 So. 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Our conclusion on this phase of the case is that visibility, due to darkness and fog, was so poor that nobody should have been driving on the highway faster than their speed enabled them to stop within the distance their headlights showed them objects in the road ahead, save in the exceptional instances, , 74 So.
Provosty v. Christy 152 So. 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
285 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 253.
Taylor v. Byrnes 151 So. 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Richard v. Roquevert 148 So. 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
286 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 253.
Theriot v. Tassin 146 So. 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
273 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 253, a guest claimed damage of a party with whom he was riding.
Deichmann v. Gerard 145 So. 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Monroe v. D'Aunoy 143 So. 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Holcomb v. Perry 138 So. 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Lorance v. Smith 138 So. 871 La. 1931
Richard v. Roquevert 137 So. 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Hanno v. Motor Freight Lines, Inc. 134 So. 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
273 , , L. R. A. 1917F, 253; Blackburn v. R. R. Co., 144 La.
Hogan v. N. O. Public Service, Inc. 131 So. 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Each must have some voice and right to be heard in its control or management.” , 74 So.
Denham v. Taylor 131 So. 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Lawson v. Nossek 130 So. 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
“A guest in an automobile is entitled to demand that ■ his host shall exercise ordinary care for safety in driving the car.” , 74 So.
Neuman v. Eddy 130 So. 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Lawrason v. Richard 129 So. 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Ferry v. Holmes & Barnes, Ltd. 124 So. 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
In Jacobs vs. Jacobs, , 74 So.
Whipple v. Lirette 124 So. 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
273 , , the Court said: “As a general rule it is the duty of the driver of an automobile to maintain a speed sufficiently slow and fr' have such control over his car that he can stop within the distance in which he can plainly see an obstruction or danger ahead.
Banta v. Moresi 119 So. 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
C. C. 2315; Jacobs vs. Jacobs, , 74 So.
Smyth v. Hill Stores, Inc. 8 La. App. 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
273 , ; Churchill vs. T. & P. Ry.
Castelluccio v. Cloverland Dairy Products Co. 7 La. App. 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
In support of his contention he cites the case of Jacobs vs. Jacobs, , 74 So.
Testard v. Board of Commissioners 7 La. App. 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
See Jacobs vs. Jacobs, , 74 So.
Testard v. Board of Commissioners 8 La. App. 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
See Jacobs vs. Jacobs, , 74 So.
Centanni v. Ferrito 7 La. App. 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
*762 This question is answered by our Supreme Court in Jacobs vs. Jacobs, , 74 So.
Southern Surety Co. v. Morgan's L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co. 6 La. App. 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Jacobs vs. Jacobs, , 74 South.
Smith v. Interurban Transportation Co. 5 La. App. 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Campbell v. Haas 4 La. App. 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Jacobs vs. Jacobs, , 74 South.
Reid v. Missouri Pacific Railroad 3 La. App. 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Jacobs vs. Jacobs, , 74 South.
Brock v. Friend 4 La. App. 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
: The case Jacobs vs. Jacobs, , 74 South.
Timberlake v. Cassidy 1 La. App. 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Jacobs vs. Jacobs, , 74 South.
Sloan v. Gulf Refining Co. 139 So. 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
In a case decided a few years ago, , 74 So.
Luke v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co. 84 So. 483 La. 1920
607 , that what was said in Dixon v. V. S. & P. R. Co., “practically to the effect that a person on the front seat of an automobile is under the same legal obligation as the chauffeur to be observant,” was mere obiter dictum, “and as to its being good law in any case, qusere.” The obiter dictum in the Dixon Case was, in effect, , 74 South.
Daull v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. 86 So. 477 La. 1920
Maritzky v. Shreveport Rys. Co. 81 So. 253 La. 1919