DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co., 171 So. 188.

13 citing documents.

  • Aupied v. Joudeh 694 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Plaintiffs and Allstate rely on the case of Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co., (La.App.
  • Distinguished Miller v. Universal Underwriters Insurance 308 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co., (La.App.
  • Blanchard v. Ogima 215 So. 2d 902 La. 1968
    2nd Cir. 1939); Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co., (La.App.
  • Gaspard v. LeMaire 158 So. 2d 149 La. 1963
    2d 726 ; Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co. Inc., La.App., and Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut.
  • Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Co. 114 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    See also Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co., Inc., La.App., ; Glen Falls Insurance Company v. Copeland, La.App., , and Anderson v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, La.App., 180 So.
  • Bourg v. Hebert 70 So. 2d 116 La. 1953
    648 ; Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co., Inc., La.App., .
  • Federal Ins. Co. v. Lepine 55 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    imilarly a traveler on a boulevard or arterial highway has a right to expect an operator of a motor vehicle on an intersecting street to stop before entering thereon, and, with that expectation in mind, the operator of the automobile on the favored street can proceed forward while the other traveler on the intersecting stops at the sign.” See also Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co., Inc., La.App., , Glen Falls Insurance Company v. Copeland, La.App., and Anderson v. Louisiana Power & Light Com
  • Bradford v. Wertz 52 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    the time Over the legal speed limit of twenty-five miles an hour was not, under the facts ■ shown, a contributing cause of the accident, the Court stating that the plaintiff “could as well have been struck in the manner it (the car) was while going 25 miles per hour just the same as it was going 40 to 50 miles per hour.” In the case of Smith v. Howard Crumley & Company, Inc., et al., La.App., , cited by defendants, the Court found that a motorist who drove heedlessly and rapidly into a right
  • Coon v. Monroe Scrap Material Co. 191 So. 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    s Article 3000 of the Civil Code, which reads, viz.: “Powers granted to persons, who exercise a profession, or fulfill certain functions, of doing business in the ordinary course of affairs to which they are devoted, need not be specified, but are inferred from the functions which these mandataries exercise.” Using this article as a predicate, this court held in Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co., , as follows: “Salesman required by dealer to own •automobile held impliedly empowered to allow pros
  • Barr v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 188 So. 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    It is true that it was held in Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co., La.App., , that one traveling on a favored street, can assume that one traveling the cross str.eet will stop before entering the intersection, but this does not absolve the driver on the favored street from all care; it is still his duty to look out for cars entering from those cross streets; he must still maintain an adequate
  • Thompson v. Travelers Ins. Co. 182 So. 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
  • Serpas v. Collard Motors, Inc. 178 So. 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    See Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co., La.App., .
  • Graham v. American Employers' Ins. Co. of Boston 171 So. 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    This court had occasion in the recent case of Mrs. Earl L. Smith v. Howard Crumley & Co. et al., (not yet reported [in State report]), to consider *474 a controversy wherein third persons were injured by reason of the negligent driving of a prospective 'purchaser of a car.