Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dudley v. Surles, 11 So. 2d 70.

14 citing documents.

Keen v. Pel State Oil Co., Inc. 332 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
Dudley v. Surles, et al., (La.
Fontenot v. Pan American Fire & Casualty Company 209 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
3rd Cir. 1961); Babineaux v. Sims, La.App., ; Dukes v. Kirkwood, La.App., ; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Baumgardner et al., La.App., ; Nichols v. Everist, La.App., *110 ; King v. Willis, La.App., ; and Dudley v. Surles, La.App., .
Normand v. American Home Assurance Company 171 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Crane v. London 152 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
Davis v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 134 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Babineaux v. Sims 111 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
A similar opinion was expressed by the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, in the case of Dudley v. Surles, La.App., , where the court said: "The trial judge held, as shown by his written opinion, that the locus of the collision could not be termed the intersection of a highway, so as to make applicable the quoted statutory provision, because the dirt road running east and west is not clearly defined and there is nothing to dist
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Baumgardner 92 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
In Dudley v. Surles, La.App., , the fact situation presented was very similar to the case at bar and in that case the Court stated: *109 "* * * the locus of the collision could not be termed the intersection of a highway, so as to make applicable the quoted statutory provision, because the dirt road running east and west is not clearly defined
Zehner v. Anders 85 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
A similar conclusion was reached by the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, in Dudley v. Surles, La.App., -72: “The fact that the front end of the truck had reached a distance of only •314 feet east of the center line, this being shown by the testimony of a disinterested witness, argues strongly in ■favor of the closeness of -the colliding, vehicles when the.
King v. Willis 75 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1954
See Dudley v. Surles, 1942, , in which the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit agreed with the opinion of the trial judge that "the locus of the collision could not be termed the intersection of a highway, so as to make applicable the quoted statutory provision, because the dirt road running east and west is not clearly defined and there
Holden v. Rester 66 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Its position is stated in Dudley v. Surles, La.App., .
Graves v. Riser 62 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
367 ; Duke v. Adkins, La.App., 1941, ; Dudley v. Surles, La.App., 1943, ; Seale v. Stephens, Employers Casualty Company, Intervenors, La.App., 1946, ; affirmed 210 La.
Employers' Fire Ins. v. Sparke 56 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
2d 200 , Dudley v. Surles et al., La.App., and Comfort v. Monteleone et al., La.App., 163 So.
Fidelity Guaranty Fire Corporation v. Ritter 37 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Gaines v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. 32 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
App.], ; Hero v. Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co. [La.