Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Churchill v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 92 So. 314.

43 citing documents.

Christy Robinette v. Old Republic Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Robinette v. Old Republic Insurance Co. 229 So. 3d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Adams v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford 543 So. 2d 480 La. 1989
Hutson v. Madison Parish Police Jury 496 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
McCoy v. Franklin Parish Police Jury 414 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Beavers v. Butler 188 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
Carter v. Canal Insurance Co. 154 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Bordelon v. Couvillion 130 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Senegal v. Thompson 91 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Insurance Co. 88 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Dickson v. Peters 87 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co. 86 So. 2d 909 La. 1956
Williams v. Barton 81 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
477 ; Churchill v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., , 92 So.
Hubble v. Bourg 68 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Churchill v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., , 92 So.
Woodruff v. Stewart 6 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Squyres v. Baldwin 185 So. 14 La. 1938
477 ; Churchill v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., , 92 So.
Martin v. Yazoo M. R. Co. 181 So. 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Aaron v. Martin 172 So. 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Aaron v. Martin 167 So. 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Martin v. New Orleans, T. & M. Ry. Co. 158 So. 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Sandoz v. Beridon 150 So. 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
In Churchill v. Texas & Pacific R. R. Co., , 92 So.
Brown v. Dalton 143 So. 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Delaune v. Breaux 139 So. 753 La. 1932
Barber v. El Dorado Lumber Co. 139 So. 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
730 , , cited by plaintiff counsel, Hayslip, the driver of the automobile in which Churchill was a guest was held negligent in approaching the railroad crossing without slackening his speed and attempting to beat the train across.
Lorance v. Smith 138 So. 871 La. 1931
Chanson v. Morgan's L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co. 136 So. 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
727 , , the Supreme Court announced a rule which has been frequently applied by this and the other Courts of Appeal in the state.
Bailey v. Demourelle 135 So. 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Welch v. Louisiana Oil Refg. Corp. 135 So. 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Delaune v. Breaux 135 So. 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Grouchy v. Globe Furniture Co. 134 So. 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Williams v. Lenfant 131 So. 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Lawrason v. Richard 129 So. 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
160, 164 , we considered *441 a question of speed at night, and said, in a majority opinion on that subject: “The latest authors say that when the driver of an automobile is blinded and cannot see objects in the road ahead of him, the speed of the car must be so slow that he can stop almost immediately.” , 92 So.
Sears v. Interurban Transp. Co. 125 So. 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Chopin v. Levy 125 So. 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Churchill vs. Texas & Pacific Railroad Company, , 92 So.
Del Buono v. Ill. Cent. R. R. 124 So. 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
As authority *37 for the second proposition to the effect that the negligence of the driver of an automobile cannot be imputed to the persons riding with him, we assume that plaintiff relies on Churchill vs. T. & P. R. Co., , 92 So.
Franklin v. Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. 120 So. 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Smyth v. Hill Stores, Inc. 8 La. App. 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
727 , ; Vitale vs. Checker Cab Co., decided by Supreme Court May 7, 1928.
Ford v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 8 La. App. 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Vitale V. Checker Cab Co. 7 La. App. 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Johnson v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. 5 La. App. 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Reid v. Missouri Pacific R. R. 6 La. App. 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
It has been said that the guest of the driver of an automobile is not required to keep a lookout for danger but can rely upon the discharge of that duty by the driver, who is responsible for the operation of the automobile; (Churchill vs. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., , 92 South.
Toups v. Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Co. 4 La. App. 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
It was so held by the Supreme Court in Churchill vs. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., , 92 South.
Reid v. Missouri Pacific Railroad 3 La. App. 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by