DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rottman v. Beverly, 165 So. 153.

188 citing documents.

  • Paquet v. Renken 30 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Howze v. Hollandsworth 26 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    Plaintiff filed motion for rehearing in this case, urging that under the facts as found by the District Court and this court, , 165 So.
  • Young v. Creegan 23 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    [1] It is not necessary to discuss the testimony in the record at any great length or in any detail, since it is obvious that the testimony of defendant herself brings this case within the "discovered peril" , 165 So.
  • Distinguished Bailey v. Reggie 22 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Burns v. Evans Cooperage Co. 23 So. 2d 165 La. 1945
  • Muller v. Phillips 20 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Hebert v. Meibaum 19 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    Counsel rely, in the main, , 165 So.
  • Carroll v. Louisiana Iron Supply Co. 17 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
  • Barnes v. Texas New Orleans R. Co. 16 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
  • Howes v. Wimberly 15 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    Before this court, the main contention that the plaintiff makes is that under the last clear chance doctrine, , 165 So.
  • Gauthier v. Foote 12 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1943
  • Lervick v. White Top Cabs 10 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
  • Coleman v. Terrebonne Ice Co. 8 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    ide of the highway onto the pavement in front of the approaching truck, the truck driver had the last clear chance of avoiding the accident after he saw, or should have seen, the dangerous situation in which the deceased had placed himself, in accordance with the rule adopted in the recent cases applying the *Page 315 doctrine of last clear chance, , 165 So.
  • Soards v. Shreveport Rys. Co. 8 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
  • Broussard v. Hotard 4 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
  • Stansbury v. Drillon 2 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
  • Fontenot v. Freudenstein 199 So. 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    We think that the case is one which squarely presents the problem of how far the courts should go in extending the doctrine known as that of “discovered peril”, and, so far as we have been able to ascertain, , 165 So.
  • McClain v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 200 So. 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    Consequently, it may be said that inapplicable to the instant cases are the last clear chance and discovered peril doctrines, So.
  • Prevost v. Smith 197 So. 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    This doctrine is well enunciated in the case of Rottman v. Beverly et al., *Page 914 , 165 So.
  • Rector v. Allied Van Lines, Inc. 198 So. 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
  • Eggleston v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co. 192 So. 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
  • Langley v. Viguerie 189 So. 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
  • Rutter v. Norman 189 So. 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
  • Young v. Thompson 189 So. 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    This is the rule prevailing in some jurisdictions at this time, , 165 So.
  • Jones v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 189 So. 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
  • Shipp v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. in Trusteeship 188 So. 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
  • Streetman v. Andress Motor Co. 189 So. 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, , 165 So.
  • Clark v. De Beer 188 So. 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
  • Jones v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 185 So. 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    The Court of Appeal for the First Circuit overruled the judgment of the District Court, , 165 So.
  • Jackson v. Cook 181 So. 195 La. 1938
  • Russo v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 181 So. 485 La. 1938
    We cannot conceive of a , 165 So.
  • Russo v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 177 So. 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    There then came into the jurisprudence, the doctrine of “discovered peril” , 165 So.
  • Jackson v. Cook 176 So. 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
  • Davidson v. American Drug Stores, Inc. 175 So. 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
  • Iglesias v. Campbell 175 So. 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
  • Hicks v. Texas & N. O. R. Co. 173 So. 745 La. 1937
    219 ], amounts to no more than this,-that a negligent defendant will be held liable to a negligent plaintiff if the defendant, aware of the plaintiff’s peril or unaware of it only through .carelessness, had in fact a later opportunity than the plaintiff to avert an accident.” , 165 So.
  • Hicks v. Texas N. O. R. Co. 170 So. 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    One who walks upon a railroad track without looking or listening, and without exercising such precautions as will disclose approaching peril, is the author of his own misfortune and cannot recover unless it be that either the doctrine of the last clear chance, or the doctrine of discovered peril, , 165 So.
  • Monk v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. 168 So. 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    However, it appears that there will hereafter be unanimity of opinion on this question by reason of the lucid and enlightening discussion of the doctrine by Justice Odom, in speaking for a unanimous court, , 165 So.