DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., 35 So. 2d 38.

23 citing documents.

  • Crain v. W. R. Core Construction Co. 215 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
  • Jeansonne v. Willie 212 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    406 , ; Viator v. Gilbert, La.App., ; Bouis v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, La.App., ; McNulty v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., ; Max Barnett Furniture Co. v. Barrosse, La.App., ; Crow v. Alesi, La.App., ; Gandy v. Arrant, La.App., ; McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., La.App., ; Vienne v. Chalona, La.App., ; Roberson v. Rodriguez, La.App., 186 So.
  • Henderson v. Ancona 197 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    For example, we find that McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., La.App., , was a case in which the following driver was found guilty of excessive speed.
  • Taylor v. Genuine Parts Company 192 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    * * *" In McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., Inc., , the late Court of Appeal, First Circuit, stated the general rule thus: "`In trailing other cars, a motorist must govern his speed or keep back a reasonably *245 safe distance so as to provide for the contingency of a car in front suddenly stopping, and so that he can stop without a collision, or can turn out suffici
  • Slocum v. American Casualty Insurance Company 189 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
  • Mire v. Birmingham Fire Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania 176 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    He cited the cases of Martin v. Sanders, La.App., ; Kottwitz v. Highway Insurance Underwriters, La.App., ; McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., Inc., , in support of this contention.
  • Plaisance v. Maryland Casualty Company 169 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Regarding interval to be maintained by the trailing driver, we cite with approval the following language appearing in McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., La.App., : "In Hill v. Knight, La.App., 163 So.
  • Henderson v. Shewbart 112 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
  • Yellow Cab Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Stewart 111 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    In an effort to further show that the Board of Review incorrectly found as a legal proposition that the various automobile accidents in which the employee was involved were "unavoidable", appellant cites the following cases: McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., La.App., 1 Cir. 1948, ; Gandy v. Arrant, La.
  • Billiot v. Noble Drilling Corporation 109 So. 2d 96 La. 1959
    853 ; McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., Inc., La.App., .
  • Soudelier v. Johnson 95 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Indeed, in the case of McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., La.App., , relied on by the trial judge, which cited Hill v. Knight, La.App., 163 So.
  • Beard v. A. R. Blossman, Inc. 94 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Coleman v. Shreveport Railways Company 86 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    In McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., Inc., La.App., , it appears that McDaniel was driving south on U. S. Highway 51 at night, with a car approaching him, and as the cars approached one another, McDaniel saw some objects in the highway between the lights of his own and that of the approaching car, whereupon he reduced his speed when he discovered some cows were cro
  • Exner v. Flowers 82 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    Cases cited by diligent counsel for plaintiff-appellee concerning the duties of the rear vehicle to the forward vehicle, such as McDaniel v. Capitol Transportation Co., Inc., La.App., 1 Cir., , are inapplicable, as involving vehicles in- the' same lane of traffic.
  • Land v. Colletti 79 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    See Dauzat v. Kelone, La.App., ; Dixie Highway Express v. C. C. Galbraith & Son, La.App., ; Crow v. Alesi, La.App., 1 Cir., ; McDaniel *643 v. Capitol Transport Co., Inc., La.App., 1 Cir., .
  • August v. Delta Fire & Casualty Company 79 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    He was not proceeding at such speed, nor did he have his car under such control, as to stop within the range of his vision, Dauzat *116 v. Kelone, La.App., ; Brothers v. Russell, La.App., ; McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., Inc., La.App., 1 Cir., .
  • Peranio v. Superior Insurance Company 76 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., Inc., ; ; Fuld v. Maryland Casualty Co., 178 So.
  • Talbot v. Allstate Insurance Company 76 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    1948, ; Gandy v. Arrant, La.
  • A. C. Service, Inc. v. Porter 73 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    The doctrine to be applied in such circumstances was set forth by this Court in McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., La.App., .
  • Rhea v. Daigle 72 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    App.], , and McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co. [La.App.], , substantiate the rule of law that it is duty of a driver of an automobile following another to have his car under such control as to be able to bring it to a complete stop within the range of his vision or penetration of lights when confronted by any obstructions.
  • Max Barnett Furniture Co. v. Barrosse 70 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    There is a well-established rule which is stated in a syllabus which appears in Crow v. Alesi, La.App., : “A motorist following other traffic must keep his automobile at a safe distance behind so as to enable him to stop his automobile in a sudden emergency.” In McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., Inc., , the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, citing Blashfiéld’s Cyclopedia of Automobile Law, Vol.
  • McNeely v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 69 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    See McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., Inc., La.App., 1948, ; Smith v. Smith, La.App., 1948, ; Reeves v. Cailouet, La.App., 1950, .
  • Chisholm v. Ryder 56 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    648 ; McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Company, Inc., La.App., ; Vienne v. Chalona, La.App., .