Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hutto v. Arbour, 4 So. 2d 84.

16 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Quincy McKinnies, Jr. 171 So. 3d 861 La. 2014
l court's sua sponte decision to convert the defendant’s motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal into a motion for new trial, then grant a new trial based on a finding that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the crime with which defendant was charged, constituted legal error that must be reversed.” .Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000-0445, p. 10 (La.11/28/00); 77 ; see La.
Primo v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 172 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1965
the action was for damages arising out of an automobile collision when a wrecker truck collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle.
Enga v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. 104 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
2d 106 ; Hutto v. Arbour, La.App., ; Drake v. Crowley Yellow Cab Co., Inc., La.App., ” There is no doubt in our minds but that the proximate cause of the accident was-the gross negligence (of defendant Shaw), and speed of defendant’s vehicle.
Holland v. Marquette Casualty Co. 95 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
1 Cir., , simply concern the liability, as between the general and special employer, for damages caused through the negligence of the borrowed employee, either to third persons or to property of one of the parties.
Webb v. Providence Washington Ins. Co. 72 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
The plaintiff relies upon the following cases: Hutto v. Arbour, La.App., ; Gardiner v. Travelers Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Phares v. Courtney, La.App., ; Spencer v. Crain, La.App., ; Gauthier v. Fogleman, La.App., ; and Seamons v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., La.App., .
Browne v. Hall 70 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Plaintiffs and appellants cite and rely on the cases of Hutto v. Arbour, La.App., ; Gardiner v. Travelers Indemnity Company, La.App., 11 So.
Seamons v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 62 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
aving the right of way over any automobile approaching at right angles, and that the driver who does not respect the legal right of the automobile which first entered the intersection, to ' proceed through the intersection in safety, is negligent, even though the car entering the intersection secondly in point of time is being driven on a right of way street.” s Also see Hutto v. Arbour, La.App., ; Gardiner v. Travelers Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Phares v. Courtney, La.App., ; and Spencer v. Crai
Gauthier v. Fogleman 50 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Hutto v. Arbour, La.App., .
Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co. 45 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
81 ; Hutto v. Arbour, La.App., ; Cali v. Cloverland, La.App., ; Spanja v. Thibodeaux Boiler Works, La.App., 2 So.
Aucoin v. Houston Fire & Casualty Co. 44 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
This case, in my opinion, comes squarely under the decisions rendered in Hutto v. Arbour, La.App., , Phares v. Courtney et al., La.App., , Ferris v. Quinn, La.App., .
Hair v. Lee 38 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
App., ; Wilson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., La.
Dixie MacHine, Weld. Mtl. Wks. v. Boulet Transp. 38 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
and in Cali *Page 552 v. Cloverland Dairy Products Co., .
Phares v. Courtney 27 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
[3] , where a motorist approaches an intersection at a moderate rate of speed and proceeds across, and his automobile is struck by another automobile on its side after the motorist has proceeded more than half the distance across the intersection, such motorist cannot be charged with negligence as he has a right to procee
Cali v. Cloverland Dairy Products Co. 21 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Ferris v. Quinn 21 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
App., ; Gardiner v. Travelers Indemnity Company, La.
Gardiner v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 11 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Hutto et al. v. Arbour et al., La.App., .