Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Castille v. Richard, 102 So. 398.

15 citing documents.

O'NEAL v. Southern Farm Bureau Insurance Co. 325 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
1048 , (1958); , 102 So.
Campbell v. American Home Assurance Company 258 So. 2d 81 La. 1972
1048 , (1958); , 102 So.
Box v. Town of Gonzales 224 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Walden v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 197 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Seal v. Core 175 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Felder v. Eagle Star Insurance Company 79 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
ter *92 she entered same, and also either on her side or on the middle of the roadway; but that even if it occurred on Mrs. Felder's side of the roadway, or as Mrs. Felder's car approached the western edge of the dust cloud immediately before Mrs. Felder's entry into same; that nevertheless, Mrs. Felder is contributorily negligent, , 102 So.
McLelland v. Harper 38 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Campbell v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 182 So. 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
O'Rourke v. McConaughey. 157 So. 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
“The facts of this case, including the width of the road and all, , 102 So.
Outman v. Imperial Oil & Gas Products Co. 144 So. 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
General Exchange Ins. Corp. v. Caraccio 144 So. 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
274, , 37 A. L. R. 586; Couvillion v. Zoder, 2 La.
Safety Tire Service, Inc. v. Murov 140 So. 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
402 , *881 27 A. L. R. 1194, , 102 So.
Norman v. Mulhearn 138 So. 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Woodley Collins v. Schusters' Wholesale Produce Co. 128 So. 469 La. 1930
hus: “A speed which might be reasonable and proper under ordinary circumstances may be excessive and improper where the driver’s view of the highway is in any way interfered with, as where he is confused or partly blinded by the headlights of an approaching •vehicle, or is driving through fog, smoke, or dust, or his windshield is covered with sleet and snow, or rain.” *532 , 102 So.
Dominick v. Haynes Bros. 127 So. 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
The facts of this case, including the [width of the road and all, are very similar to the case of Castille vs. Richard, , 102 So.