DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 24 So. 2d 292.

109 citing documents.

  • Christy Robinette v. Old Republic Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    994, (1953); Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., So.2d 292 (1945); Sqguyres v. Baldwin, 191 La.
  • Robinette v. Old Republic Insurance Co. 229 So. 3d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    994 , (1953); Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , (1945); Squyres v. Baldwin, 191 La.
  • Adams v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford 543 So. 2d 480 La. 1989
    994 , (1953); Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , (1945); Squyres v. Baldwin, 191 La.
  • Allen v. Burrow 505 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Great American Insurance v. Marshall 355 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    1944) reversed on other grounds , (1945).
  • Carter v. Salter 351 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    579 (1928); , (1945); (La.App.
  • Callais v. Allstate Insurance Co. 334 So. 2d 692 La. 1976
    Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , (1945).
  • Carter v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 305 So. 2d 481 La. 1974
    875 , (1964): The Court of Appeal, citing two of its own cases and Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , acknowledged that the rule is established in this State that a motorist travelling on a favored street, and, a fortiori, on a street controlled by electric semaphore lights, is entitled to assume that drivers on the less favored street, and particularly traffic facing a red light, will obey the law an
  • Carter v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 293 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    875, 883 , (1964), as follows: “The Court of Appeal, citing two of its own cases and Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , acknowledged that the rule is established in this State that a motorist travelling on a favored street, and, a fortiori, on a street controlled by electric semaphore lights, is entitled to assume that drivers on the less favored street, and particularly traffic facing a red light, will obey the law an
  • Smith v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company 270 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
    See Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Koob v. Cooperative Cab Co., 213 La.
  • Decker v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 247 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    See Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , (1945); Koob v. Cooperative Cab Co., 213 La.
  • Meek v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 244 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Under similar circumstances, in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , (1945), a case comparable in many respects to the instant case, the Supreme Court refused to hold a truck driver proceeding on a green light guilty of negligence for failing to observe that another motorist approaching on an intersecting street and confronted by a red light was not going to stop.
  • Dennison v. Commercial Standard Insurance Co. 243 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1945); Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La.
  • Arnold v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 236 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    “In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , a case very similar to this one, the Court refused to hold a truck driver proceeding on a green light guilty of negligence for failing to observe that plaintiff’s husband was not going to stop in obedience to a red signal light, which was not working at the time.
  • Pettus v. Lehrmann 230 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    83 , ; , ; Reynolds v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., ; Roth v. Lloyd S. Gaubert, Inc., La.App., ; Seiner v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab.
  • Barthelemy v. Phoenix Insurance Co. 226 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    903 , ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Glen Falls Ins.
  • Ballaron v. Roth 221 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
  • Barrois v. Noto 215 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    Co. et al., La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Denery, Inc., , ; Glen Falls Ins.
  • Denton v. Fontenot 216 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
  • Cotten v. Transamerica Insurance Co. 211 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
  • Adams v. Kimble 208 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Co. et al, La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Glen Falls Ins.
  • Fruge v. Aetna Insurance 194 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    338 , , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , (1945).
  • Planchard v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 192 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Co. et al., La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., So.2d 292 ; Glen Falls Ins.
  • Logue v. O'Donley 190 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Appropriate to the situation here is an observation of Judge, now Justice, McCaleb, in a dissenting opinion in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , 513, La.App., Orl.1944, and later quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in , (1945), wherein he stated: “We are living in an advanced stage of the motor age.
  • Griffie v. Nichols 188 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Moreover, , (1945), in gauging the fault which may be attributable to a motorist who was operating his vehicle in obedience to positive law, such as at a lawful speed and in a proper traffic lane, one should be convinced that the dereliction was most substantial and it was such a direct factor that, without it, the
  • Reynolds v. Allstate Insurance 176 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    83 , ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Roth v. Lloyd S. Gaubert, Inc., La.App., ; Seiner v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., .
  • Jolley v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc. 170 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    Co. et al., La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Glen Falls Ins.
  • Vidrine v. General Fire and Casualty Company 168 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Hadley v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., La.App.
  • Breland v. American Insurance Company 163 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    "* * * in Kientz v. Charles Dennery [Inc.], , , the Supreme Court quoted, with approval, an observation made in a dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeal by Judge (now Associate Justice) McCaleb who stated ( , 513-514): "`We are living in an advanced stage of the motor age.
  • Soprano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 165 So. 2d 308 La. 1964
    See: Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Marquette Casualty Company, La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , .
  • Southall v. Graves 165 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Company, 240 La.
  • Bourgeois v. Francois 161 So. 2d 750 La. 1964
    *884 The Court of Appeal, citing-two of its own cases and- Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., .
  • Johnston v. Peerless Insurance 159 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    wherein it was stated: "We are living in an advanced stage of the motor age.
  • Gaspard v. LeMaire 158 So. 2d 149 La. 1963
    148 ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , and other cases.
  • Soprano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 155 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    See: Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Marquette Casualty Company, La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , .
  • Biggs v. Verbois 151 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Bahry v. Folse supra [La.App., ]; and White v. Travelers Insurance Company, La.App.2nd Cir., .
  • Doga v. United States Fire Insurance 151 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    [Kientz v. Dennery, La.App., ; , ], Kientz v. Dennery, supra; Cf. Breaux v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Chicago, 232 La.
  • Bourgeois v. Francois 152 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Seiner v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., .
  • Wise v. Prescott 151 So. 2d 356 La. 1963
    '' In; brief and in argument in this court coúnsel1- for Public Service contend that the- CoUrt-of.Appeal misconstrued and did violence- to the law .as laid down in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , .
  • Sittig v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 149 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    “In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , a case, very similar to this one, the Court re-, fused to hold a truck driver proceeding on a green light guilty of negligence for failing to observe that plaintiff’s husband was not going to stop in obedience to a red signal light, which was not working at the time.
  • Patterson ex rel. Caraway v. Allstate Insurance Co. 147 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Co. et al., La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Glen Falls Ins.
  • Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 148 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    On page 543 of 124 So.2d he cited the following decisions as supporting this comment: Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , 24 So.
  • Chiasson v. Connecticut Fire Insurance 144 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Wise v. Prescott 142 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , the Supreme Court tersely said: "* * * And it can not and will not be disputed that a motorist can not, in the face of imminent danger, rely upon the right of way accorded him by law.
  • Marbury v. Arnold 142 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Pertinent here, we believe, is the language used by the Supreme Court in Kientz v. Charles Denney, Inc., , and quoted by that court with approval in Youngblood v. Robinson, 239 La.
  • Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Marquette Casualty Co. 140 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    In the case of Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , the Supreme Court stated the law of Louisiana to be as follows: “ * * * [I]t also can not be disputed that under the traffic light system a motorist, who is proceeding on a proper signal, should not be held to the same degree of care and vigilance as if no such system prevailed.
  • Emmco Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 138 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    903 , *825 ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , .
  • Wells v. Causey 137 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Dennery, Inc., , ; Koob v. Cooperative Cab Co., 213 La.
  • Dilworth v. Roberts 138 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    “In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , a case very similar to this one, the Court refused to hold a truck driver proceeding on a green light guilty of negligence for failing to observe that plaintiff’s husband was not going to stop in obedience to a red signal light, which was not working at the time.
  • Homeland Insurance Co. of America v. Marshall 138 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    83 , ; Moss v. Travelers Insurance Company, La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , (citing the following cases: Manuel v. Bradford, La.App., 166 So.