Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jeter v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 149 So. 144.
- Lee v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 566 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
-
Buchholz v. Dealers Transport Co.
399 So. 2d 1303
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
citing Foster v. Texas and Pacific Railway Company, 5 La.App.
-
New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad v. Scogins
148 So. 2d 909
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Co., La.App., ; Bahry v. Illinois Central Ry.
-
American Employers' Insurance Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
111 So. 2d 380
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1959
351 ; Jeter v. Texas & Pacific Railroad Co., La.App.1933, ; Foster v. Texas and Pacific Railroad Co., 1927, 5 La.App.
-
Ledet v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad
79 So. 2d 604
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
.” Furthermore, if the interpretation contended for by counsel for plaintiff should be put on the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Blackburn case, it would be contrary to the established jurisprudence elsewhere and in this State.
-
Guidry v. Texas & N. O. R.
56 So. 2d 611
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
601 ; Jeter v. Texas & Pacific Railroad Co., [La.App., ] and Campbell & Company v. Texas & Pacific Railroad Co., [La.App., 152 So.
- Moody v. Texas P. Ry. Co. 37 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
-
Abraham v. Texas P. Ry. Co.
24 So. 2d 886
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
App., ; Dumas v. Thompson, La.
- Homeland Ins. Co. v. Thompson 12 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
-
Sullivan v. Yazoo M v. Ry. Co.
8 So. 2d 109
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
This rule is adhered to in Jeter v. Texas Pacific Railway Co., La.App., , and Campbell Co. v. Texas Pacific Railway Co., La.App., 152 So.
-
Smith v. Thompson
185 So. 71
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Co., La.App., ; Campbell & Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry.
-
Metoyer v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
175 So. 490
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Boyd v. Kansas City Railway Co. (La.App.)
- Pinckley v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 165 So. 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Campbell Co. v. Texas P. Ry. Co. 152 So. 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
-
Winfiele v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
150 So. 43
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1933
Co., , wherein the court said: “In the open country outside city limits, any speed is legitimate for a railroad train which is consistent with its safety.