DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., 199 So. 377.

102 citing documents.

  • Suire v. Winters 88 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
  • Smith v. State 87 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • Gaines v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. 86 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    On the other- hand, plaintiff urges that this casé falls under the exception to this doctrine, where an oncoming motorist’s failure to perceive the object in his path is sometimes excusable when the object is difficult to see and so unusual or not reasonably to be anticipated, as not to alert the driver’s attention; , 199 So.
  • Washington Fire & Marine Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 86 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co., La.App., ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., ; Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co. 86 So. 2d 909 La. 1956
  • Mershon v. Cutrer 85 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    1st Cir. 1948, —The Court of Appeals found that the character, nature and size of the object must be considered, and found that the driver was not negligent in colliding i with an unlighted truck; “Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 1940, , 199 So.
  • Lavergne v. Indemnity Insurance Co. 84 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
  • Gautreaux v. Orgeron 84 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    the facts and circumstances existing in each case, which determine whether or not the approaching motorist had sufficient reason for not seeing the object or obstruction in time to stop, depending not only on whether the object is difficult to see, but also whether it is unusual or not reasonably to be anticipated so as not to alert the driver’s attention, , 199 So.
  • Hicks v. Tilquit 82 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    “In view of the above conclusions it is my opinion this case falls squarely under the decisions in Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co. [La.App.], , 199 So.
  • Broussard v. Commercial Casualty Insurance Co. of Newark 80 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    It is',therefore, necessary to decide whether Bressaux was guilty of any negligence under the facts and circumstances of 'the case, , 199 So.
  • Hogg v. Department of Highways of the State 80 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    1 ; and Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 1940, , 199 So.
  • McClenaghan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 79 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    See: Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 1940, , 199 So.
  • Sedotal v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 77 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1954
    Woodall v. Southern Scrap-Material Co., La.App., ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., ; Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • King v. Risdon & WE Holoman Lumber Company 76 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    In discussing the foregoing rule, which obliges a motorist to reduce his speed and control his car so that he can stop within the distance in which he can plainly see an obstruction, the Supreme Court in Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 1940, , 199 So.
  • Monteleone v. Dularge Packing Co. 73 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1954
    578 .” Appellant contends that the instant case is governed by Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • Simms v. Lawrence Bros. 72 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    The case, as we view it, comes within this doctrine announced and followed in these cases: Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • Simms v. Lawrence Bros. 72 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    The case, as we view it, comes within this doctrine announced and followed in these cases: Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • Ramsey v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co. 70 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
  • McDowell v. National Sur. Corp. 68 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    Lovelace v. Gowan, La.App., ; , 199 So.
  • Dauzat v. Kelone 65 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    The only question remaining for consideration is whether, under the circumstances of this particular case, , 199 So.
  • Watts v. Spikes 60 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
  • Finley v. Guidroz 58 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1952
    ter falls within the limited line of jurisprudence which constitutes an exception to the general rule that the driver of an automobile must maintain his vehicle at such a speed and under such control that he may be able to bring his vehicle to a halt within a distance illuminated by his headlights, and which exception has been established in the cases of Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • Evans v. Kirby 53 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    The present case is similar to and controlled by Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • Huskey v. Maryland Cas. Co. 53 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    The type and the nature of the hazard,, in our opinion, clearly brings this case within the principles enunciated in Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • Goodwin v. Department of Highways 53 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1951
    Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Company, Inc., , 199 So.
  • Lovelace v. Gowan 52 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
  • Buford v. Combs 50 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Company, La.App., ; Hemel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., ; Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • McCann v. Dixon 50 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    There is a line of cases that announce exceptions to this rule, stemming from Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Company, et al., , 199 So.
  • Lynch v. Fisher 41 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., , and Rea v. Dow Motor Co., La.
  • Hicks Transfer Co. v. Fort Worth Poultry Egg Co. 41 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    The facts of this case clearly distinguish it from Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Company, Inc. et al, , 199 So.
  • Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co. 40 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
  • French v. T. S.C. Motor Freight Lines 39 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
  • Fuller v. Buckner 38 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    As stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., et al., , 199 So.
  • Vines v. Protective Indemnity Co. 37 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    We discussed and commented on cases that are exceptions to the rule in the Hogue case and to some extent in the Mickens case, particularly Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Company, Inc., et al., , 199 So.
  • Carter v. Le Blanc Lumber Co. 37 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
  • Rea v. Dow Motor Co. 36 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    The case, as we view it, falls squarely within the doctrine announced in Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Company, Inc., et al., , 199 So.
  • Murry v. Salley 35 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    As stated by the Supreme Court in Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., et al., , 199 So.
  • Radovich v. Stipelcovich 32 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1947
    .Counsel cites several cases, in each of which- there was something so unusual as to explain the failure of the driver of the moving vehicle *396 to see a stationáry one,- , 199 So.
  • Cole v. Burgess 31 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    Lately the case of Gaiennie v. Co-operative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • Hemel v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. 31 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Odom v. Long 26 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    See Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Company, Inc., et al., , 199 So.
  • Phillips v. Central Surety Ins. 25 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    1 , and Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., et al., , 199 So.
  • Herring v. Holicer Gas Co. 22 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    The last case on this question decided by the Supreme Court is that of Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Company, Inc., et al., , 199 So.
  • Hogue v. Akin Truck Line 16 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    469 ; Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Company, Inc., et al., , 199 So.
  • Frost v. Anderson 15 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
  • Webb v. Dunn 15 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
  • McCook v. Rebecca-Fabacher 10 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    Counsel for the plaintiff stress the case of Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • Babington v. Burris 7 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    Another feature of the case which should be given consideration, on which the evidence is lacking, is whether or not there were obstacles, such as an on-coming car with glaring headlights, to interfere with the driver of the automobile involved herein as was found in the case of Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., , 199 So.
  • Arceneaux v. Louisiana Highway Commission 5 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1941
  • Warnick v. Louisiana Highway Commission 4 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    We do not find much distinction between this case and the case of Gaiennie v. Co-operative Produce Company, Inc., et al., , 199 So.