passive violation in Louisiana

2005By this court's ruling in Ghrigsby , federal preemption under Shanklin would therefore apply regarding the warnings "whether conditions at the crossing have since changed such that automatic gates and flashing lights would be appropriate." Shanklin, supra at 358 , 120 S.Ct. 1467 .

2004In Hester v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 61 F.3d 382 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1093 , 116 S.Ct. 815 , 133 L.Ed.2d 760 (1996), the plaintiff argued that there was no evidence in the record demonstrating federal approval of the passive warning devices installed.

2004In Hester v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 61 F.3d 382 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1093 , 116 S.Ct. 815 , 133 L.Ed.2d 760 (1996), the plaintiff argued that there was no evidence in the record demonstrating federal approval of the passive warning devices installed.

2004In Hester v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 61 F.3d 382 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1093 , 116 S.Ct. 815 , 133 L.Ed.2d 760 (1996), the plaintiff argued that there was no evidence in the record demonstrating federal approval of the passive warning devices installed.

1985The reason for that is that it would be inconsistent for one to deny the obligation of a contract, or to deny that he had violated the obligation, and at the same time urge that a proper demand might have brought forth a performance of the obligation on his part. [Citations omitted.] 6 So.2d at p. 725 See also, Louisiana Farms Co. v. Yazoo & M.V.R.

1962It was held also that the mere failure to finish the work within the time stipulated was a passive violation of the contract, and did not render the contractor liable for damages until he was put in default or unless he waived the putting in default." See also Steel Const. Co. v. Louisiana Highway Commission, D.C., 60 F.Supp. 183 .

1960Levy v. Schwartz & Bros., 34 La.Ann. 209 ; Hill & Markam v. Penny, 15 La.Ann. 212 ; Cable v. Leeds & Co., 6 La.Ann. 293 .

1960Levy v. Schwartz & Bros., 34 La.Ann. 209 ; Hill & Markam v. Penny, 15 La.Ann. 212 ; Cable v. Leeds & Co., 6 La.Ann. 293 .

1938The only change made was the addition of the words “or fail to do,” after the word “do” — thus: “Nine — In all cases where any corporation shall commit trespass or do or fail to do anything for which an action for damages lies it shall be liable to be sued in the parish where such damage is done or trespass committed.” (We have italicized the words that were added by the act of 1908.) In the case of City of Lafayette v. Wells Fargo & Co. Express, 129 La. 323 , 56 So. 257 , in 1911, it was said that the ninth paragraph of article 165 of the Code of Practice had been amended so as to be applicab

1938The only change made was the addition of the words “or fail to do,” after the word “do” — thus: “Nine — In all cases where any corporation shall commit trespass or do or fail to do anything for which an action for damages lies it shall be liable to be sued in the parish where such damage is done or trespass committed.” (We have italicized the words that were added by the act of 1908.) In the case of City of Lafayette v. Wells Fargo & Co. Express, 129 La. 323 , 56 So. 257 , in 1911, it was said that the ninth paragraph of article 165 of the Code of Practice had been amended so as to be applicab

1931Doll v. Kathman, 23 La.

1928Davis v. Glenn, 3 La.