DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Atkins v. Points, 88 So. 231.

20 citing documents.

  • Blanchard v. Ogima 215 So. 2d 902 La. 1968
    2nd Cir. 1960); , 88 So.
  • Villarrubia v. Roy 162 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
  • Martin v. Brown 117 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    The opinion in the cited case enunciated the well established principle that the owner of an automobile is not liable *666 for damages caused by its operation by a third person unless said owner was present, or unless the third person was acting as his agent, servant or employee within the scope of his agency or employment at the time of the accident, , 88 So.
  • Hart v. Hardgrave 103 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
  • Rhea v. Farrington 78 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
  • Grand Lodge of Louisiana v. Natchitoches Lodge 40 So. 2d 472 La. 1949
    957 , ; Cain v. Jones, 177 La.
  • Crawford v. Bullock 25 So. 2d 226 La. 1946
    Counsel for plaintiff, in argument and in brief, has indulged in an extensive discussion of Ordinance 13825, Commission *561 Council Series, requiring taxicab operators to furnish bond, , 88 So.
  • Crawford v. Bullock 20 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    In support of this last contention, , 88 So.
  • Anderson v. Carrick 198 So. 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
  • Hadrick v. Burbank Cooperage Co. 177 So. 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
  • Adams v. Golson 174 So. 876 La. 1937
  • Jones v. Shehee Ford Wagon & Harness Co. 157 So. 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
  • Buisson v. Potts 156 So. 408 La. 1934
    144, 145 , that “the owner of an automobile is not liable for damages -resulting from the negligence of some one else in the operation of the car, without proof or reasonable presumption that the person who operated the car was employed or authorized by the owner to operate the car.” , 88 So.
  • James v. J. S. Williams & Son, Inc. 150 So. 9 La. 1933
  • Lyle v. Guillot 143 So. 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
  • James v. J. S. Williams & Son, Inc. 143 So. 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
  • Vuillemot v. August J. Claverie & Co. 125 So. 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    324 ; Atkins vs. Points, , 88 So.
  • Blake v. Jefferson-St. Charles Transfer Co. 8 La. App. 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    be employee, who was a competent driver.” In distinguishing this case from the Black case, Judge Provosty says: “This case (the Black case) could have a bearing upon the present case only if the borrower of defendant’s automobile could be held to have been the agent of defendant on the occasion in question, but nothing of that kind is pretended.” The same distinction is made in Atkins vs. Points, , 88 So.
  • Bardt v. Champon 6 La. App. 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    “The owner is not liable for injuries done by the driving of his vehicle without his knowledge and consent.” (Atkins vs. Points, , 88 South.
  • Perkins v. Streckfus 6 Pelt. 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1923