DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kelly v. Schmidt & Zeigler, Ltd., 76 So. 250.

20 citing documents.

  • Fullilove v. US Casualty Company of New York 129 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    676 ; Kelly v. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 So.
  • Martin v. American Heating & Plumbing Co. 52 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    For instance, in Kelly v. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 So.
  • Butler v. Mississippi Foundation Co. 175 So. 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    212 ; Kelly v. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 So.
  • Mitchell v. Ernesto 153 So. 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    The case of Kelly v. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 So.
  • Guillory v. United Gas Public Service Co. 148 So. 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    513 , L. R. A. 1918A, 240; Kelly v. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 So.
  • Locke v. Shreveport Laundries, Inc. 137 So. 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    “He will be presumed, in case of accident, to have seen what he should have seen in the performance of his duties.” Kelly v. Schmidt & Zeigler, Ltd., , 76 So.
  • Hanno v. Motor Freight Lines, Inc. 134 So. 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    Kelly v. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 So.
  • Santos v. Duvic 133 So. 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    App. 495 ; Kelly v. Schmidt & Ziegler, Ltd., , 76 So.
  • Denham v. Taylor 131 So. 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    Kelly v. Schmidt & Ziegler, , 76 So.
  • Raziano v. Trauth 131 So. 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    “ ‘He will be presumed, in case of accident, to have seen what he should have seen in the performance of his duties] , 76 So.
  • Whipple v. Lirette 124 So. 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    402, 403 , 27 A. L. R. 1194, the Court said: “An automobile driver can not put himself in a position where in order to save himself, he must run into somebody else and then plead that he could not help it and is therefore not liable.” In Kelly vs. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 So.
  • Lipscomb v. Standard Highway Co. 124 So. 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    Kelly vs. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 So.
  • Weinfield v. Yellow Cab Co. 120 So. 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    Kelly vs. Schmidt et al., , 76 So.
  • Pylant v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 8 La. App. 350 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1928
    367 ; Kelly vs. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 South.
  • Parlongue v. Leon 6 La. App. 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    “He will be presumed, in case of accident, to have seen what he should have seen in the performance of his duties.” Kelly vs. Schmidt, , 76 South.
  • Latham v. Umbach 3 La. App. 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    The numerous and well-selected authorities found in appellant’s brief have been duly considered, and we note, particularly, that authority of Kelly vs. Schmidt and *304 Ziegler, , 76 South.
  • Campbell v. Haas 2 La. App. 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Kelly vs. Schmidt & Ziegler, , 76 south.
  • Woringen v. Zetzmann 2 La. App. 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Kelly vs. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 South.
  • Norwich Union Indemnity Co. v. Cohen 1 La. App. 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Kelly vs. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 South.
  • Gibbons v. N. O. Terminal Co. 1 La. App. 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Kelly vs. Schmidt & Zeigler, , 76 South.