DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Collier v. Frank Varino & Co., 96 So. 500.

13 citing documents.

  • Jimes v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 163 So. 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    1, § 230, p. 202; Collier v. Frank Varino & Co., , 96 So.
  • Charles v. Sullivant 159 So. 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    719 ; Collier v. Frank Varino & Co. et al., , 96 So.
  • Franz v. New Orleans Coffee Co. 150 So. 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    638 , ¡; Martens v. Penton, 15 La.
  • Vergo v. Shreveport Rys. Co. 139 So. 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    401 ; Collier v. Frank Varino & Co., , 96 So.
  • Sparks v. Hanagriff 131 So. 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    App. 549 , the court held that a speed exceeding the maximum permitted by a city ordinance is not “negligence per se, and when it appears that the excessive speed was not the cause of the accident no liability in damages arises therefrom.” This, principle was recognized in Collier v. Frank Varino & Co., , 96 So.
  • Denham v. Taylor 131 So. 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    The doctrine urged by counsel was approved in general terms in that case but is more directly recognized in Collier v. Frank Varino & Co., , 96 So.
  • Hayes v. Gunter Bros. Lumber Co. 129 So. 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    The case of Collier v. Frank Varino & Co. et ah, , 96 So.
  • McQuiston v. Shreveport Rys. Co. 124 So. 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    “Even though driver of truck was driving at excessive speed and did not give signal of his approach, contributory negligence of one waiting for street car, in suddenly stepping in front of tbe truck, held tbe proximate cause of bis death, as driver was deprived of last clear chance of preventing tbe collision.” Collier v. Frank Varino & Co., , 96 So.
  • Bass v. Means 124 So. 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    See, also, Collier vs. Frank Varino & Co., , 96 So.
  • Hardee v. Nevers 120 So. 227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    In Collier vs. Frank Varino & Co. et al., , 96 So.
  • Harrison v. Carlisle 121 So. 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    Aside, however, from this, the evidence establishes that Mrs. Harrison was not paying any attention whatever to ^he vehicular traffic, and was clearly guilty of negligence in this respect as well as in attempting to cross on the caution light and we are of the opinion that the plaintiff’s negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries (Collins vs. Varino, , 96 So.
  • Smith v. Interurban Transportation Co. 5 La. App. 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
  • Herrin v. Cicardo 1 La. App. 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    787 , where the syllabus is: *591 “Plaintiff -who attempted to cross street to take a street car on a dark and rainy night after having seen automobiles approaching at a distance of a block and a half,, without looking for approaching automobiles, after having left; curb, was contributorily negligent.” Collier vs. Varino, , 96 South.