DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, Inc., 188 So. 416.

19 citing documents.

  • Farris v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 242 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    861, 862, 863 ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, La.App., 2 Cir., 420 .
  • Nelson v. Zurich Insurance 165 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Just as positively in another line of cases the violation of a traffic law has been declared to be negligence per se; Crawley v. City of Monroe (2nd Circuit, 1946, writs denied), ; Muse v. East Texas Grocery Co. (2nd Circuit, 1942), ; Woodruff v. Stewart (2nd Circuit, 1942), ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford (2nd Circuit, 1939, writs denied), ; Smith v. Texas & Pac.
  • Foster v. Fidelity Mutual Insurance 118 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    “Counsel for plaintiffs, in their reply brief, contend that the case from which defendant’s counsel quotes, Austin v. Baker, La.App., [419], is inapposite, because it is based on an intersectional collision.
  • Harvey v. Great American Indemnity Company 110 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    752 ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, Inc., La.App.1939, ; Terrill v. ICT Insurance Company, La.App.1957, .
  • Miller v. Brown 59 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    413 ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, La.App.1939, , followed in Standard Gin & Mfg.
  • Drez v. Grand 48 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    173 ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, Inc., La.App., ; Mathews v. Hayne, La.App., 188 So.
  • Simon v. Langlinais 44 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    We have examined the cases cited by counsel for the plaintiff, namely: Scruggs v. V. Frank Lynn Co., Inc., La.App., ; Butler v. O’Neal, La.App., ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhorn & Ford, La.App., ; and Hero v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., , but we do not believe the facts in those cases are applicable to the facts herein presented.
  • Wyche v. Brian 28 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    App., ; Mathews v. Hayne, La.
  • Termini v. &198tna Life Ins. Co. 19 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    See Pender v. Bonfanti, La.App., ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon Ford, Inc., et al., La.App., .
  • Muse v. East Texas Grocery Co. 11 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    752 ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon Ford, Inc., et al., La.App., .
  • Russo v. Aucoin 7 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    861, 862, 863 ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon Ford, La.App., 2 Cir., 420 .
  • Distinguished Phillips v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 6 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    490 ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon Ford, Inc., et al., La.App., ; and Foy v. Little, La.App., 197 So.
  • Brown v. Dickson 3 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    857 ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon Ford, La.App., .
  • Arline v. Alexander 2 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    136 , and Austin v. Baker-Lawhon Ford [La.App.], .
  • Painter v. Bewley Furniture Co. 195 So. 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    752 ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, Inc. et al., La.App., .
  • Rogers v. F. Strauss & Son 194 So. 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    752, 755 ; Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, La.App., .
  • Standard Gin & Manufacturing Co. v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, Inc. 188 So. 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    For the reasons assigned in the opinion of the case of Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, Inc., et al., , this day decided by us, the judgment appealed from in this cause is affirmed.
  • Dunn v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, Inc. 188 So. 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    The accident discussed in the opinion of the case of Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, Inc., et al., , this day decided by us, is responsible for the filing of this proceeding.
  • Employers Casualty Co. v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, Inc. 188 So. 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    For the reasons assigned in the opinion of the case of Austin v. Baker-Lawhon & Ford, Inc., et al., , this day decided by us, the judgment appealed from in this cause is affirmed.