Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Monkhouse v. Johns, 142 So. 347.

19 citing documents.

Nelson v. Zurich Insurance 165 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
391 ; Monkhouse v. Johns (La.App.), ; Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co. et al., 127 La.
Dowden v. Bankers Fire & Marine Insurance Company 124 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
704 ; Monkhouse v. Johns, La.App., .
Williams v. US Royal Tires 101 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
704, 705 ; Monkhouse v. Johns, La.App., ; Livaudais v. Black, 13 La.App.
Lebo v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance 99 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
2 Cir., ; Hamburger v. Katz, Orl., 10 La.App.
Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 97 So. 2d 389 La. 1957
App., ; Goner v. Anding, La.
Harris v. Varnado 94 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
App., ; Livaudais v. Black, 13 La.App.
Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 91 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
704, 705 ; Monkhouse v. Johns, La.App., ; Livaudais v. Black, 13 La.App.
Texas Mutual Ins. v. Stutes 84 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
669 ; Monkhouse v. Johns, La.App., ; Gomer v. Anding, La.App., 146 So.
Fetterly v. McNeely 77 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
"The doctrine is well recognized in all courts of the country, and has been *760 frequently applied by the appellate courts of this state, as is amply shown in the review of decisions to be found in the case of Monkhouse v. Johns, from the Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, reported in .
Bourg v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 77 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
"The doctrine is well recognized in all courts of the country, and has been frequently applied by the appellate courts of this state, as is amply shown in the review of decisions to be found in the case of Monkhouse v. Johns, from the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, reported in .
Levy v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America 8 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
669 ; Monkhouse v. Johns, La.App., ; Gomer v. Anding et al., La.App., 146 So.
B B Cut Stone Co. v. Uhler 1 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
"In the case of Monkhouse v. Johns, La.App., , Judge Taliaferro, who was the organ of the court in the Coffey case, supra, after reviewing a number of authorities on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, said: "`Also, we conclude that these authorities sustain the proposition that the application of the rule should not be confined to cases where plaintiff is e
Harrelson v. McCook 198 So. 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
246 ; Monlchouse v. Johns, La.App., ; Lawson et ux.
Morris v. Roy Motors, Inc. 181 So. 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
In the case of Monkhouse v. Johns, La.App., , the rule was applied and the defendant held liable under its application, but the court in defining the rule, as prevailing in the various states, said that it appears to be as follows: “Res ipsa loquitur is a phrase which imports that in each case there must be something in the facts that speaks of the neglige
Reil v. McNaspy 177 So. 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Weddle v. Phelan 177 So. 407 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1937
Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co. et al., 127 La.
Dunaway v. Maroun 178 So. 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
We will quote part of what we said ' , in the way of reaffirmance, as it is in line with what Blashfield-says on the subject: “Res ipsa loquitur is a phrase which imports that in each case there must be something in the facts that speaks of the negligence of defendant; that is, that the thing which caused the injury was under the management of the d
Galbraith v. Dreyfus 162 So. 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
App.) ; Lawson v. Nossek, 15 La.
Kendall v. People's Gas & Fuel Co. 158 So. 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
App.) ; Hebert v. Lake Charles I., L. & W. Company, 111 La.