DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Williams v. Pelican Creamery, 30 So. 2d 574.

23 citing documents.

  • Talley v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. 181 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    545 , ; Williams v. Pelican Creamery, Inc., La.App., .
  • Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 174 So. 2d 122 La. 1965
    505 (1920); Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, 148 So.
  • Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 174 So. 2d 122 La. 1965
    505 (1920); Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, 148 So.
  • Nelson v. Zurich Insurance 165 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Co. (1st Circuit, 1953), , quoting from Williams v. Pelican Creamery Co. (1st Circuit, 1947), ; and citing Bourgeois v. Longman (1st Cir., 1940, writs refused), 199 So.
  • Brown v. Rousseve 163 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Ardoin v. Williams, La.App., ; Manning v. Fortenberry Drilling Company, La.App., ; August v. Delta Fire & Casualty Company, La.App., ; Howell v. Kansas City Southern Transport Co., La.App., ; Williams v. Pelican Creamery, La.App., ; Calvert Fire Ins.
  • Durham v. Paciera 164 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    He also cites Williams v. Pelican Creamery, La.App., , authority for the principle that where a guest acquiesces in the remote cause, he did not acquiesce in the proximate cause.
  • Hunter v. American Employers Insurance 153 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Williams v. Pelican Creamery Co., La.App., ; Cavaretta v. Universal Film Exchange, La.App., 182 So.
  • Steagall v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 138 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    This is made clear in a later portion of the Dixie Drive It decision wherein the court, in discussing such Court of Appeal decisions as Manning v. Fortenberry, La.App., ; Williams v. Pelican Creamery, La.App., and Penton v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., La.App., held as follows: "Admittedly, the broad language of these decisions in reference to proximate cause conflicts with Falgout v. Younger [La.App., 192 So.
  • Jones v. Tidwell 139 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Co. 137 So. 2d 298 La. 1962
    App., , and Penton v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., La.App., .
  • Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Co. 128 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Ardoin v. Williams, La.App., ; Manning v. Fortenberry Drilling Co., La.App., ; Williams v. Pelican Creamery, La.App., ; Penton v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., La.App., .
  • Perera v. Johnson 125 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
  • D & D PLANTING CO. v. Employers Casualty Co. 124 So. 2d 908 La. 1960
    Inc. et al., La.App., ; Moreau v. Garritson, La.App., 166 So.
  • Ardoin v. Williams 108 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    This rule is recognized in Williams v. Pelican Creamery, Inc., La.App., 1947, ; Hollabaugh-Seale Funeral Home, Inc. v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., 1949, 215 La.
  • McNulty v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 73 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    App., ; Williams v. Pelican Creamery, Inc., La.App., .
  • Edelman v. Refrigeration Equipment Co. 72 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
  • Fruit Exchange, Inc. v. Simmons 71 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    Williams v. Pelican Creamery, La.App., ; Drewes v. Miller, La.App., .
  • Mellow Joy Coffee Co. v. Continental Cas. Co. 63 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1953
    As was stated in the case of Williams v. Pelican Creamery, Inc., La.App., , 577: “Suffice it to say that the violation of a law regulating highway traffic does not constitute ‘negligence per se’, but to hold one who violates the law responsible in damages it must appear that the manner of violation was one of the proximate causes of accident and resulting injury.” See also thfe case of Bour
  • Jackson v. Jones 61 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    Williams v. Pelican Creamery, La.App., ; Cavaretta v. Universal Film Exchange, La.App., 182 So.
  • Pierce v. Morgan City Canning Co. 55 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    In any event, his negligence, if any, was passive and as held by this court in the case of Williams et al. v. Pelican Creamery, Inc. et al., , such passive negligence was merely a remote cause of the accident and the real intervening negligent acts of defendant Crochet became the proximate cause thereof.
  • Kendall v. New Orleans Public Service 45 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    Williams v. Pelican Creamery Co., La.App., ; Cavaretta v. Universal Film Exchange, La.App., 182 So.
  • Singletary v. Kirby 39 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
  • Dollar v. &198tna Casualty Surety Co. 37 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    App., , decided by our brethren of the First Circuit, we find an interesting and comprehensive discussion with respect to facts and pleading strikingly similar to the instant case.