Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Vitale v. Checker Cab Co., 117 So. 579.

32 citing documents.

Mayo v. Nissan Motor Corp. 639 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Thomas v. Hartford Ins. Co. 540 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
(on rehearing); , 117 So.
FRAIN AS TUTRIX OF BEASON v. State Farm Ins. Co. 421 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Noting with approval Professor Johnson's Callais analysis, and repudiating the imputed contributory negligence concept of Vitale v. Checker Cab Company, Inc., , 117 So.
Lewis v. Till 395 So. 2d 737 La. 1981
Lewis v. Till 387 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Olinde v. American Emp. Ins. Co. 376 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Since the Callais decision, and in particular the use of the duty-risk analysis to escape the original Callais decision, much question has arisen as to whether Vitale v. Checker Cab Co., Inc., , 117 So.
Carter v. Salter 351 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Callais v. Allstate Insurance Co. 334 So. 2d 692 La. 1976
Vitale v. Checker Cab Co., Inc., , 117 So.
Callais v. Allstate Insurance Co. 308 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
entioned in the amendment of the statute should not have a right of action for damages for physical injury causing the death of the person injured, unless he would have had a right of action if the injuries had not caused his death.” The trial judge, in arriving at that conclusion, drew an analogy between this claim and the claim of a , 117 So.
Foy v. Ed Taussig, Inc. 220 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
3d Cir. 1961); , 117 So.
Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 164 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Gaspard v. LeMaire 158 So. 2d 149 La. 1963
Brignac v. Fontenot 96 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Our Supreme Court, after a lengthy discussion, , 117 So.
Williams v. Barton 81 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Gremillion v. Caffey 71 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
734, 738 , our Supreme Court through the late Chief Justice O'Niell, in discussing the case of Palmer v. Edwards, supra, had the following to say: "The ruling in the Vitale Case [ , 117 So.
Giorlando v. Maitrejean 22 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
McHenry v. American Employers' Ins. Co. 18 So. 2d 656 La. 1944
Kientz v. Charles Dennery 17 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
Woodruff v. Stewart 6 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Weitkam v. Johnston 5 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
See Vitale v. Checker Cab Co., Inc., , 117 So.
Dandridge v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 192 So. 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
“It seems .clear to us that the views expressed in Vitale v. Checker Cab Co., supra [ , 117 So., 579 , 59 A.L.R.
Squyres v. Baldwin 185 So. 14 La. 1938
Squyres v. Baldwin 181 So. 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Vitale v. Checker Cab Company, *589 , 117 So.
Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America 169 So. 132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1936
191 , thereof, the court, , 117 So.
Ruiz v. Clancy 162 So. 734 La. 1935
Edwards v. Royal Indemnity Co. 161 So. 191 La. 1935
Ruiz v. Clancy 157 So. 737 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1934
Batton v. Babb 150 So. 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Lorance v. Smith 138 So. 871 La. 1931
Martens v. Penton 130 So. 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Kohn v. Bellott 125 So. 269 La. 1929
Dedications to public use, and servitudes in favor of the public, are not governed by the strict rules which apply to private property; the visible signs * * * and open use of the property by the public supply the place of both title and registry.” , 117 So.
Franklin v. Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. 120 So. 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
647 ; Vitale vs. Checker Cab Company, Inc., , 117 So.