Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite May v. Yellow Cab Co., 114 So. 836.

24 citing documents.

Frazier v. Calhoun 165 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
297 , ; May v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., , 114 So.
Richardson v. Joseph 165 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
297 , ; May v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., , 114 So.
Ramsey v. Kallio 62 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
Drake v. Crowley Yellow Cab Co. 41 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Culver v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 26 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Murphy v. Henderson 23 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
See May v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., , 114 So.
G'sell v. Cassagne 12 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
See May v. Yellow Cab Company, Inc., , 114 So.
Le Blanc v. Olivier 5 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
May v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., , 114 So.
Townley v. Pomes 191 So. 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
814 , and May v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., , 114 So.
Antoine v. Louisiana Highway Commission 188 So. 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Under this state of facts, the following principle of law as announced and approved by the Supreme Court in the case of May v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., , 114 So.
Parks v. Hall 181 So. 191 La. 1938
Brown v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America 178 So. 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Hunt v. Chisholm 183 So. 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Parks v. Hall 179 So. 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Middleton v. Humble 172 So. 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
James v. J. S. Williams & Son, Inc. 150 So. 9 La. 1933
Francis v. Barbazon 134 So. 789 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
In fact, the defendant admits in his answer that the driver of the truck was his employee and was acting “within the scope of his employment.” , 114 So.
Bearman v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. 134 So. 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
226 .” See, also,- the following cases and .authorities: , 114 So.
Tarleton-Gaspard v. Malochee 133 So. 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
hold under the doctrine of “respondeat superior,” plaintiff contends that, having shown that the automobile was owned by BuckmasterLuck-Malochee, Inc., and that, Mr. Malochee was the president of the corporation, and, since this is a case coming under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the burden is upon the corporation to show it is free from fault, citing May v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., , 114 So.
Griffin v. Motor Transit Co. 127 So. 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
308 .; May vs. Yellow Cab Co., , 114 So.
Johnson v. Jim Brownlee, Inc. 127 So. 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
May vs. Yellow Cab Co., , 114 So.
Swedman v. Standard Oil Co. 125 So. 481 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1929
May vs. Yellow Cab Co., , 114 So.
Bass v. Weber-King Mfg. Co. 123 So. 112 La. 1929
De Moss v. Police Jury of Bossier Parish 118 So. 700 La. 1928