DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., 185 So. 11.

43 citing documents.

  • Dickerson v. Jordan 514 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Emmco Insurance Co. v. Alexander 224 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1969
    octrine of res ipsa loquitur asserts that whenever a thing which produced an injury is shown to have been under the control and management of the defendant, and the occurrence is such as in the ordinary course of events does not happen if due care has been exercised, the fact of the injury itself will be deemed evidence to support recovery.” ’ “Our Supreme Court, in Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Dominique v. Insurance Co. of North America 195 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Porter v. Barron 185 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Naquin v. Baton Rouge Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 182 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Gulf States Utilities Company v. Guidry 183 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    The criteria of applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to automobile collision cases were set forth by the Supreme Court in Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Hamilton v. City of Shreveport 180 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    158 , La.App., Orleans 1936; Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Nelson v. Zurich Insurance 165 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    See Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Foster v. Phoenix Insurance Company 146 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Vogt v. Hotard 144 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    690 , ; Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Dowden v. Bankers Fire & Marine Insurance Company 124 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    426 , ; Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., et al., , 185 So.
  • Steadman v. American Fidelity & Casualty Company 113 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., 1938, , 185 So.
  • Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance v. Caldwell 111 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
  • Williams v. US Royal Tires 101 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    "In support of its first argument, defendant relies upon such frequently found statements as: `The doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" applies in cases where, by reason of the fact of the happening of the accident, the defendant is in a better position to explain its occurrence than the plaintiff,' , 185 So.
  • Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 91 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    In support of its first argument, defendant relies upon such frequently found statements as: “ ‘The doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” applies in cases where, by reason of the fact of the happening of the accident, the defendant is in a' better position to explain its occurrence than the plaintiff,’ ” So.
  • Hawayek v. Simmons 91 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    690 , ; Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Habetz v. Vida Sugars, Inc. 87 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    * * ’ ” “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applied where, by reason of the mere happening of the accident, defendant is in a better position to explain its occurrence than the plaintiff, Loprestie v. Roy Motors, 1938, , 185 So.
  • Williams v. Barton 81 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    In support of this position plaintiff relies upon the case of Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., 1938, , 185 So.
  • Arrington v. Hearin Tank Lines 80 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    288 , and Loprestie v. Roy Motors, 1939, , 185 So.
  • Fetterly v. McNeely 77 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    doctrine of res ipsa loquitur asserts that whenever a thing which produced an injury is shown to have been under the control and management of the defendant, and the occurrence is such as in the ordinary course of events does not happen if due care has been exercised, the fact of the injury itself will be deemed evidence to support recovery.'" Our Supreme Court, in Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Carter v. Middleton 76 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    158 ; Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Talbot v. Allstate Insurance Company 76 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., 1938, , 185 So.
  • Pinchera v. Employers Casualty Co. 73 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    Highwáy Regulatory Act, American Jurisprudence and Blashfield, as we have hereinabove referred to or quoted, the opinion continued: ■ “According to the statement therein made, it is the duty of the driver in the rear to have his car under such control as not to interfere with the free use of the road ‘in any lawful manner,’ by the driver of the car ahead.” See also Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Columbia Fire Ins. v. Black 61 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    See Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., [ ] 185 So.
  • New York Underwriters Ins. v. B. H. Prewitt & Sons 55 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    447 ; Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Kean's v. National Surety Corp. 53 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    In that connection the plaintiff cites the case of Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Crochet v. A. & P. Truck Lines 52 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    See Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., et al., , 185 So.
  • Justin v. Delta Motor Line 43 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    709 ; Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc. et al., , 185 So.
  • Anderson v. London Guarantee Accident Co. 36 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    447 ; Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Rea v. Dow Motor Co. 36 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    This doctrine was approved in Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc. et al., , 185 So.
  • International Paper v. Arkansas Louisiana M.R. Co. 35 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    455 ; Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc. et al., , 185 So.
  • Proctor v. Lohman 31 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Adam v. English 21 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Muhleisen v. Eberhardt 21 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Mercer v. Tremont G. Ry. Co. 19 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    447 ; Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Gerald v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana 16 So. 2d 233 La. 1943
    447 ; Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., et al, , 185 So.
  • Kemper v. Land 2 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    Plaintiffs rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as announced in the case of Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., et al., , 185 So.
  • B B Cut Stone Co. v. Uhler 1 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    "The Supreme Court defines this doctrine in the case of Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.
  • Gaiennie v. Co-Operative Produce Co. 199 So. 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    This doctrine was approved in Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., et al., , 185 So.
  • Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co. 199 So. 377 La. 1940
    This doctrine was approved in *425 Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc. et al., , 185 So.
  • Harrelson v. McCook 198 So. 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    The Supreme Court in Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., et al., , 185 So.
  • Althans v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 191 So. 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    In the recent case of Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., et al., , 185 So.
  • Fogleman v. Interurban Transp. Co. 187 So. 73 La. 1939
    227 , 41 L.R.A., N.S., 340, 341, Ann.Cas.l913A, 829; Huddy’s Cyclopedia of Automobile Law, Volumes 3 and 4, 9th ed., Sections 121, 128; 2 Blashfield’s Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Permanent Edition, § 931; and Loprestie v. Roy Motors, Inc., , 185 So.