DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hamilton v. Lee, 144 So. 249.

45 citing documents.

  • Otillio v. City of New Orleans 290 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    2nd Cir. 1940); (La.App.
  • Womack v. American Motorists Insurance Co. 248 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., (2d Cir. 1932).
  • Duane v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Company 148 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
    (Citing Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., .)
  • McCandless v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. 120 So. 2d 501 La. 1960
    671 ; Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., .
  • May v. Huey 116 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    668 ; Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., ; Johnson v. Item Co., Limited, 10 La.App.
  • Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance 111 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Johnson v. Item Co., supra; Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., ; Murphy v. Star Checker Cab, Inc., La.App., 150 So.
  • Montalbano v. Hall 108 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
    79 ; Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., ; Johnson v. Item Co., supra.
  • Commercial Credit Corporation v. Morris 107 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
    668 ; Johnson v. Item Co., supra; Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., .
  • Youngblood v. Allstate Insurance Co. 98 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    App.) .” The principle was again restated by this court in greater detail and with further explanation in New Hampshire Fire Ins.
  • Keith v. Royal Indemnity Company 90 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
  • Martin v. Adams 88 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    668 ; Johnson v. Item Co., supra; Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., ; New Hampshire Fire Ins.
  • Sullivan v. Locke 73 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    369 ; Hamilton v. Lee (La.App.), ."
  • Faul v. Miller 55 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    This was the holding in Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., ; Simpson v. Pardue, 15 La.App.
  • Gauthier v. Fogleman 50 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    740 , Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., , Fisher v. Levin, 16 La.App.
  • Vidrine v. Fontenot 49 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    This was the holding in Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., ; Simpson v. Pardue, 15 La.App.
  • Phillips v. Central Surety Ins. 25 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
  • Weadock v. Eagle Indemnity Co. 15 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    We here give the cases wherein the largest amounts have been awarded in this state, without narrating the facts thereof, to-wit: Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., , $15,000; Meares v. Dixie Creameries, Inc., 9 La.App.
  • Bonner v. Boudreaux 8 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    2, § 1038, p. 230 et seq.; Hamilton v. Lee et al., La.App., ; Sweeney et al. v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., et al., La.App., 184 So.
  • Law v. Osterland 3 So. 2d 680 La. 1941
    147 ; Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., ; Tassin v. Downs, La.App., 190 So.
  • Lotspeich v. Shreveport Rys. Co. 193 So. 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    “In the case of Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., , the court quoted, with approval, the following statement and citation from Berry on Automobiles: ‘ “If the driver who has not the right-of-way, looked when considerable distance from the crossing and was justified in the belief that he had ample time to cross in front of a machine having the right-of-way, he wa
  • Mathews v. Hayne 188 So. 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
  • Tassin v. Downs 190 So. 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., .
  • Sweeney v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 184 So. 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., ; Blashfield’s Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Vol.
  • Meredith v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. 185 So. 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    We cannot think, therefore, there was any reason to charge him with contributory negligence as matter of law.” Some of the many Louisiana cases on this point are as follows: Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., ; Arena v. Morris & Co., 14 La.App.
  • Ellis v. Whitmeyer 183 So. 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    We fully agree with the conclusions of the lower court in this respect, but in this case we think it unnecessary to resort to the rule applicable to workmen; and under the doctrine laid down in the cases of Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., , and McDonald v. Stellwagon, La.App., 140 So.
  • Robinson v. Miller 177 So. 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    He cites Hamilton v. Lee, La.App., ; Lambert v. Conrad, La.App., 152 So.
  • Guernsey v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 172 So. 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    Simpson v. Pardue, 15 La.App.
  • Lofton v. Cottingham 172 So. 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    and McDonald v. Stellwagon et al. (La.App.)
  • Prudhomme v. Continental Casualty Co. 169 So. 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
  • Bagley v. Standard Coffee Co. 168 So. 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
  • Mills v. Moore 166 So. 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    Grouchy v. Globe Furniture Co., 16 La.App.
  • Millet v. Consolidated Companies, Inc. 160 So. 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
  • Toye v. Richmond. 157 So. 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    App.) , and other authorities to the same effect.
  • Friede v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 156 So. 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
  • Upton v. Bell Cabs, Inc. 154 So. 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    App.) ; Ætna Casualty Co. v. Lee, supra; Johnston v. Jahncke Service, Inc., supra; Hudson v. Jackson Brewing Co., 4 La.
  • Favaza v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 154 So. 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
  • Haley v. Black 152 So. 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
  • Taylor v. Byrnes 151 So. 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
  • Hinton v. Tri-State Transit Co. of La. 151 So. 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    App.) ; Murphy v. Hartley (La.
  • Buisson v. Potts 151 So. 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    App.) ; Schatz v. Kehoe, 15 La.
  • Long v. White 149 So. 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    App.) , Driefus v. Levy (La.
  • Smith's Tutorship v. Perrin 145 So. 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    App.) ; Murphy v. Hartley et al. (La.
  • Murphy v. Hartley 144 So. 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    not yet reported [in State report], this court said: “Plaintiff’s car reached the intersection first and was entitled to the right of way.
  • Luetkenhoelter v. Clements 144 So. 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    decided by this court, this day.
  • Blevins v. Drake-Lindsay Co. 144 So. 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    We have had occasion to-day, in the ease of E. Clint Hamilton v. Elmo P. Lee, et al., , to review at length this identical question.