DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, 16 So. 2d 366.

29 citing documents.

  • Aymond v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company 179 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., .
  • Wright v. Home Indemnity Co. 153 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    2nd Circuit, 1944), ; Dupuy et al. v. Godchaux Sugars et al., supra.
  • Ardoin v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 133 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    2 Cir., ; Giorlando v. Maitrejean, La.
  • Audubon Insurance v. Cunningham 132 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Orleans App., ; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., 2 Cir., ; Hutchinson v. T. L. James & Co., Inc., La.Orleans App., 160 So.
  • Guillory v. Farmers Automobile Insurance 120 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Such being the case, the particular facts of each case must be considered in arriving at a conclusion, and it would not be safe to lay down a hard and fast rule for that reason.’ “And this court through Judge Taliaferro in Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., 1944, , observed: “ ‘In each of the cases wherein the driver of the moving vehicle, which ran into a stationary one, was absolved from negligence as to contributing cause of the collision, the conditions that superinduced the accident were un
  • Goutierrez v. Travelers Insurance Company 107 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Hogue v. Akin Truck Lines, La.App., .
  • Manning v. Fortenberry Drilling Company 107 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
    Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App.1944, ; Mickens v. F. Strauss & Son, La.
  • Simoneaux v. State, Department of Highways 106 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    App., ; Geoghegan v. Greyhound Corporation, 226 La.
  • Demerest v. Travelers Insurance Company 102 So. 2d 451 La. 1958
    * * * ” Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., .
  • Youngblood v. Allstate Insurance Co. 98 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Rhea v. Daigle, La.App.1954, ; Potomac Insurance Co. v. City of Alexandria, La.App.1953, ; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App.1944, ; Dyck v. Maddry, La.App.1955, .
  • Currie v. Government Employees Insurance Company 90 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    1953, ; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App.1944, ; Dyck v. Maddry, La.App.1955, .
  • Brockman v. Calvin 90 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Rhea v. Daigle, La.App,1954, ; Potomac Insurance Company v. City of Alexandria, La.App.1953, ; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App.1944, ; Dyck v. Maddry, La.App.
  • Gautreaux v. Orgeron 84 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    1 Cir., ; Mickens v. F. Strauss & Son, La.App., ; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., ; Horn v. Barras, La.App.
  • Kennison v. Durbin 82 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    516 ; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line [La.App.], ; Giorlando v. Maitrejean [La.App.], .
  • Dyck v. Maddry 81 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    Rhea v. Daigle, La.App., First Circuit, 1954, ; Potomac Insurance Company v. City of Alexandria, La.App., Second Circuit, 1953, ; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., Second Circuit, 1944, .
  • Felder v. Eagle Star Insurance Company 79 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    nd good judgment, and that she was under no duty to expect another vehicle approaching on the wrong side of the road, see Thomas v. Stewart, La.App., 1 Cir., ; Cutrer v. Jones, La.App., 1 Cir., , blindly continuing with almost no visibility, Dixie Highway Express v. C. G. Galbraith & Son, Inc., La.Orleans App., ; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., 2 Cir., ; Hutchinson v. T. L. James & Co., Inc., La.Orleans App., 160 So.
  • King v. Risdon & WE Holoman Lumber Company 76 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    And this court through Judge Taliaferro in Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., 1944, , observed: "In each of the cases wherein the driver of the moving vehicle, which ran into a stationary one, was absolved from negligence as to contributing cause of the collision, the conditions that superinduced the accident were unusual, exceptional.
  • Ramsey v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co. 70 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    However, in the case of Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., , this Court, through Judge Taliaferro as the author of the opinion, pointed out the inapplicability of the Gaiennie case and those of similar holdings to a situation such as existed in the Hogue case or in this case.
  • Achord v. Great American Indemnity Co. 68 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    App., ; Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Saia, 188 La.
  • Columbia Fire Ins. v. Black 61 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    These are Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., 1944, , a decision by Judge Taliaferro of this Court, and the case of Thiaville v. Toups, La.App., 1946, , a decision by our brothers of the Orleans Court of Appeal.
  • Watts v. Spikes 60 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    Counsel for defendant cites and relies upon the following cases; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., ; Tatum Bros. v. Herrin Transportation Co., La.App., ; Ledoux v. Beyt, La.App., ; Mickens v. F. Strauss & Son, La.App., ; Odom v. Long, La.App., .
  • Jones v. Burke 51 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    Defendants argue now that the Jones case should have been disposed of on their exception of no cause of action, this position being based on the decision in Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., ; this point will be considered first.
  • Central Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Linkenhoger 41 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., , is applicable because the record shows that there was a misting rain at the time of the collision.
  • Vines v. Protective Indemnity Co. 37 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    App., , and Mickens v. F. Strauss Son, Inc., La.
  • Brothers v. Russell 37 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1948
    App., , wherein exceptional cases were cited and discussed; and the very recent case of Rea v. Dow Motor Company, La.
  • Murry v. Salley 35 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
  • Bernstein v. Cathey & Carrell Truck Lines 32 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    The question above referred to was treated at length and maturely considered by this court in the case of Hogue v. Akin Truck Line et al., reported in .
  • Mickens v. F. Strauss Son 28 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    App., reported in , 368.
  • Herring v. Holicer Gas Co. 22 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    367, this court considered and sustained exceptions of no cause and no right of action, and, in doing so, applied the general rule as stated above.