Burthe v. Lee

152 So. 589

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Burthe v. Lee. Read the opinion of the Court — 152 So. 100 →

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided February 12, 1934·No. No. 14689.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In an application for rehearing counsel for plaintiff, appellee, calls our attention to the fact that in our opinion we incorrectly stated that after the impact plaintiff’s automobile turned over.

Even though the car did not turn over, we are well convinced that plaintiff drove it into the intersection and into the path of the on-coming taxicab without looking and at too high a speed.

The rehearing is refused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In an application for rehearing counsel for plaintiff, appellee, calls our attention to the fact that in our opinion we incorrectly stated that after the impact plaintiff’s automobile turned over.

Even though the car did not turn over, we are well convinced that plaintiff drove it into the intersection and into the path of the on-coming taxicab without looking and at too high a speed.

The rehearing is refused.

Burthe v. Lee, 152 So. 589 (La. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

152 So. 589 (Burthe v. Lee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.