DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Martin v. Yazoo M. R. Co., 181 So. 571.

14 citing documents.

  • Thomas v. Missouri Pacific RR Co. 466 So. 2d 1280 La. 1985
    Martin v. Yazoo & M.R. Co., Natal v. La.
  • Ward v. La. & Ark. Ry. Co. 451 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    See Martin v. Yazoo & M.R. Co., (La.
  • Laird v. State Farm Insurance Co. 290 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
  • Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Texas 209 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    In Martin v. Yazoo & M. R. Co., 580 , the Louisiana Court of Appeals said: “ ‘He knew the condition of the crossing and the danger of traveling it without first stopping, looking and listening.
  • Rogers v. Williams 172 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Co., La.App., ; Lockhart v. Missouri Pacific Ry.
  • Senegal v. Thompson 91 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    2 Cir., , it was stated: "The first questions to determine are the alleged negligences of the defendant company.
  • Leger v. Texas & P. R. Co. 67 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    647 , and Martin v. Yazoo & M. R. Co., La.App., .
  • Matthews v. New Orleans Terminal Co. 45 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    wherein it was held that an open gate or the absence of a flagman at a crossing does not constitute an invitation to a motorist to proceed onto railroad tracks without first stopping, looking, and listening.
  • Alanza v. Texas P. Ry. Co. 32 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    App., ; Lockhart v. Missouri Pac.
  • Eggleston v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co. 192 So. 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    Reference is made to the case of Martin v. Yazoo & M. P. R. Co., , wherein we held that a train must be operated at a speed that will' not endanger the lives of those using the city streets, notwithstanding no speed limit is fixed by any law or ordinance, and further said that a rate of six miles an hour should be the maximum at the crossing involved.
  • Barr v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 188 So. 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    A proximate connection between this want of ordinary care and the injury complained of.” In the case of Martin v. Yazoo & M. R. Co., , we laid down a rule fixing the duty and care required of a guest, in order not to be guilty of contributory negligence in case of an accident and injury.
  • Pittman v. Gifford-Hill & Co. 188 So. 470 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    Co., La.App., , by way of reference to the cited cases, that, “ * * * the late decisions of our courts are to the effect that the failure to stop before crossing a railroad track does not necessarily and in all events preclude recovery, unless it appears that the.failure to stop was a proximate cause of the accident.” We agree
  • Maddox v. Pattison 186 So. 894 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
  • Squyres v. Baldwin 181 So. 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    Railroad Company, General Accident & Fire Assurance Corporation, Limited, Intervenor, , just considered by us and not yet reported [in State Reports], we had occasion to determine the legal duty of a guest passenger in an automobile when approaching a railroad crossing.