Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Guillory v. Horecky, 168 So. 481.

25 citing documents.

Benada v. Barnhill 228 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Sutton v. Rogers 222 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
Bryan v. Durr 209 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Tate v. Hill 197 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Vander v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc. 192 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
A day motorist may be required to anticipate that a child near the highway may dart into it, , 168 So.
Lee v. Peerless Insurance Company 183 So. 2d 328 La. 1966
Cormier v. Sinegal 180 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Assuming (without so deciding) that the defendant Sinegal was negligent in his continued approach towards the young bicyclist without sounding his horn and without further slackening of his speed, in view of the high duty of care owed to children ( , 168 So.
Eubanks v. Wilson 162 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
1 Cir., ; the difference in the greater duty owed by a day motorist to a child who is near but not on the highway, , 168 So.
Gilliam v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company 124 So. 2d 913 La. 1960
Walker v. Jarnevich 102 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Guillory v. Lemoine 87 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
159 , annulled , 168 So.
Jenkins v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, NJ 83 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
The conclusion reached in the cited case was predicated, in some degree, , 168 So.
Rainwater v. Boatright 61 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
Haywood v. Fidelity Mut. Ins. Co. of Indianapolis 47 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Plaintiff raised the question of whether a child of 11 , 168 So.
Stamps v. Henderson 25 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
The latest decision of the Supreme Court that involved questions of the character herein tendered for solution, so far as we are aware, , 168 So.
Folse v. Flynn 200 So. 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
464 ; Guillory v. Horecky, et al., , 168 So.
Althans v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 191 So. 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Bodin v. Texas Co. 186 So. 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
1025 , 29 L.R.A., N.S., 677; , 168 So.
Borman v. Lafargue 183 So. 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
McMorris Ex Rel. McMorris v. Graham 176 So. 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
513 , L.R.A.1918A, 240; , 168 So.
Johnson v. National Casualty Co. 176 So. 235 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1937
On the question of the amount of damages, , 168 So.
Llorens v. McCann 175 So. 442 La. 1937
o far as to say that the driver of an automobile who sees, 150 feet in front of him, two boys, of the age of ten and twelve years, respectively, trailing in a soap-box wagon behind an ice wagon, “should take such precautions in his driving as that, in no event or situation, conceivable to an intelligent man, will he run over and kill the boys.” , 168 So.
Brooks v. Labruyere 173 So. 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Cimo v. Karstendiek 173 So. 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Rodriguez v. Abadie 168 So. 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
decided April 27, 1936; but the facts of that case are vastly different from the case at bar.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by