DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, 108 So. 2d 273.

20 citing documents.

  • Blanchard v. Delta Marine Engineering, Inc. 252 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    1 Cir. 1939); Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage Co., (Orl., La.App.1959).
  • Bryant v. Slidell Memorial Hospital 243 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Co., La.App., 2d Cir., 1961, ; Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, La.App., Orleans, 1959, ; Wyatt v. Consolidated Underwriters et al., La.App., 2d Cir., 1957, ; France v. City of New Orleans, La.App., Orleans, 1957, ; Roy v. Guillot, La.
  • Bailey v. Larry Doiron, Inc. 225 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking and Storage Co., Inc., La.App., (Orl.App., 1959); (1st La.App., 1961); (1st La.App., 1964); (4th La.App., 1961).
  • Shelton v. Arnett 175 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Jenkinson v. Clemons, La.App., ; Guilbeaux v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company, La.App., ; Card v. Southern Builders, Inc., La.App., ; and Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage Inc., La.App., .” In the instant case, there are no corroborating circumstances, and the plaintiff’s unsupported testimony has been discredited as reasoned supra.
  • Hebert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse Co. 170 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    s more properly stated as being to the effect that an employee who cannot perform the ordinary, usual and normal duties of his occupation, trade or calling without experiencing "substantial" or "appreciable" pain is considered disabled within the meaning and intendment of the term "disabled" as it appears in our Workmen's Compensation Law, Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., La.App., ; Harris v. A. A. A. Foundation, Inc., La.App., 140 So.
  • Carter v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 163 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    Co., La.App., 2d Cir., 1961, ; Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, La.App., Orleans, 1959, ; Wyatt v. Consolidated Underwriters et al., La.App., 2d Cir., 1957, 98 So.
  • Allien v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 160 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    See Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, (Orleans App.1959) and cases cited therein.
  • Vaughn v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 159 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Jenkinson v. Clemons, La.App., ; Guilbeaux v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company, La.App., ; Card v. Southern Builders, Inc., La.App., ; and Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage Inc., La.App., .
  • Harris v. A. A. A. Foundation, Inc. 140 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    We are of the further opinion that two cases, Lawes v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., La.App., , and Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, La.App., , both of which hold under similar circumstances that the employee is not totally and permanently disabled, are directly in point.
  • Turner v. Neeb Kearney & Co. 139 So. 2d 3 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    “ * * * we are also in accord with the rulings that the employee has the duty of using all reasonable means afforded him for his recovery and in cooperating with his employer in minimizing the damage and loss sustained by the employer whenever he can reasonably do so.” In Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, La.App., , this Court examined into the question of disuse atrophy present at the time of the trial and said: “We think this is simply a case where the workman’s injuries have complete
  • McGee v. Augenstein Construction Co. 137 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    The defendant cites Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., (Oxdeans App.1959) in which the court held as follows: “Plaintiff contends that if he has to endure pain in the course of his work he must be considered totally disabled because the law does not exact that an injured workman must return to work under the handicap of severe pain.
  • Meshell v. Sabine Lumber Co. 137 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, La.App.Orl., ; Carter v. Dinkeldein, supra; Sneed v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, La.App.
  • Gray v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 134 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
  • Davis v. Great American Indemnity Co. 131 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    See also Myles v. Forcum-James Co., La.App., ; Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage Inc., La.App., .
  • Lawes v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance 127 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Carter v. Dinkeldein 125 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., 1959, at page 274.
  • Waters v. LL Brewton Lumber Co. 120 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    Montgomery v. Walter Kellogg Lumber Company, Inc., et al., supra; Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., La.App., ; Roy v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co., La.App., ; Roy v. Guillot, La.App., ; Garrett v. Gaylord Container Corp., La.App., ; Cascio v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, La.App., ; Dolhonde v. Gullett Gin Co., La.
  • Montgomery v. Walter Kellogg Lumber Co. 120 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., La.App., ; Roy v. Manufacturers Casualty Ins.
  • Manuel v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 118 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    In Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, La.App., , the conclusion was reached that the testimony of an employee alone may be sufficient to prove an accident if there is nothing which impeaches or discredits him and the testimony be supported by the circumstances.
  • Card v. Southern Builders, Inc. 117 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    Fouchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., La.App., ; Wyatt v. Consolidated Underwriters, La.App., ; France v. City of New Orleans, La.App., ; Garrett v. Gaylord Container Corp., La.App., ; Dossey v. International Paper Co., La.App., ; Johnson v. Andrus, La.App., ; Cascio v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey