DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Woodley Collins v. Schusters' Wholesale Produce Co., 128 So. 469.

38 citing documents.

  • Williams v. Cortney Co. 459 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    In each case the particular facts and circumstances must be considered and, ‘in the final analysis, the facts of each case will determine the question of negligence.’ Herring v. Holicer Gas Co., La.App., [1945]; Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., , 128 So.
  • Craker v. Allstate Insurance Company 250 So. 2d 746 La. 1971
    377 (1940); Woodley & Collins v. Schuster’s Wholesale Produce *585 Co., , 128 So.
  • Shively v. Hare 189 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    377, 379 , should be kept in mind, wherein it said in discussing a case similar to the instant one: "[2, 3] In the case of Woodley & Collins v. Schusters' Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • PIGGLY-WIGGLY OP. WRHSE. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 174 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
    Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia, supra; Woodley & , 128 So.
  • Christ v. State, Department of Highways 161 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    195 ; and Woodley & , 128 So.
  • Pardue v. Norred 95 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
    821 ; Woodley & Collins v. Schusters' Wholesale Produce Company, Inc., 1930, , *365 128 So.
  • Watkins v. Strickland Transportation Co. 90 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    377, 379 , the Supreme Court referring to its decision in Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., 1930, , 128 So.
  • Lavergne v. Indemnity Insurance Co. 84 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    377 ; Taylor v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, La.App., ; Achord v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Woodley & Collins v. Schulsters’ Wholesale Produce Co., , 128 So.
  • Hogg v. Department of Highways of the State 80 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    See German v. City of New Orleans, La.App.1941, ; Woodley & Collins v. Schusters' Wholesale Produce Co., 1930, , 128 So.
  • Watts v. Spikes 60 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    377, 379 , in discussing cases similar in fact to the one under consideration, stated: “In the case of Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co. 40 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
  • Carter v. Le Blanc Lumber Co. 37 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    In the case of Woodley Collins v. Schusters' Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Radovich v. Stipelcovich 32 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1947
    195 ; Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Cole v. Burgess 31 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    The Supreme Court, years ago, , 128 So.
  • Hemel v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. 31 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    195, 197; Woodley Collins v. Schusters' Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Mickens v. F. Strauss Son 28 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    The following quotation from the opinion in Woodley Collins v. Schusters' Wholesale Produce Company, Inc., reported in -530, 128 So.
  • Herring v. Holicer Gas Co. 22 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    See also: Woodley Collins v. Schusters Wholesale Produce Company, Inc., 170 La, 527, ; Louisiana Power Light Co. v. Saia et al., La.
  • Muller v. Phillips 20 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Hogue v. Akin Truck Line 16 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    He cites and largely relies upon: Woodley Collins v. Schusters' Wholesale Produce Company, Inc., , 128 So.
  • Arceneaux v. Louisiana Highway Commission 5 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1941
  • German v. City of New Orleans 3 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
  • Gaiennie v. Co-Operative Produce Co. 199 So. 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    “In the case of Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co. 199 So. 377 La. 1940
    In the case of Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • General Exchange Ins. Corp. v. M. Romano & Son 190 So. 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    In the cases of Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Broussard v. Krause & Managan, Inc. 186 So. 384 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1939
    In one of the cases decided by the Supreme Court of this State which is cited by the defendants in support of their exception, Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Company, , 128 So.
  • Peterson v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 174 So. 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    In Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia 173 So. 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    195, 197 ; Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Blahut v. McCahil 163 So. 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    As stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Mansur v. Abraham 159 So. 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    In the ease of Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • O'Rourke v. McConaughey. 157 So. 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    In the latest case referred to by counsel, Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Penton v. Fisher 155 So. 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    992 , L. R. A. 1917F, 253, and Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., , 128 So.
  • Wyble v. Putfork 141 So. 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    Counsel for defendant relies on the eases of Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Safety Tire Service, Inc. v. Murov 140 So. 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    559 , affirmed by the Supreme Court in , 128 So.
  • Holcomb v. Perry 138 So. 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    In the latest case referred to by counsel, Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., Inc., , 128 So.
  • Norman v. Mulhearn 138 So. 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    31 ; Woodley v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., , 128 So.
  • Locke v. Shreveport Laundries, Inc. 137 So. 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    “Failure of motorist, blinded by headlights, to reduce speed of 30 miles an hour held proximate cause of collision with parked truck.” Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., , 128 So.
  • Hanno v. Motor Freight Lines, Inc. 134 So. 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    708 ; Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Wholesale Produce Co., , 128 So.
  • Mutti v. McCall 130 So. 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    733 , in reviewing other cases, said that: “It was his duty * * * to have the automobile under full control, so that it could be stopped quickly in event of emergency.” '■ In a much more recent case, Woodley & Collins v. Schusters’ Produce Company, , 128 So.