DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Wright v. National Surety Corp., 59 So. 2d 695.

98 citing documents.

  • Charleston v. American Insurance Co. 136 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Lawes v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance 135 So. 2d 920 La. 1961
    * * * ” , , Brannon v. Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company et al., 224 La.
  • Braswell v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 135 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    As was pointed out in the Wright case [Wright v. National Surety Corporation] ( , 59 So.2d [695] 697), ‘The question here, as in all these cases, is whether plaintiff is “disabled to do work of any reasonable character” within the intendment of the compensation statute.’ “In the light of the facts in the instant case the plaintiff is, in our opinion, permanently and totally disabled within the me
  • Shuff v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 134 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    530 , ; , ; Hale v. Republic Drilling Co., La.App.
  • Fruge v. Hub City Iron Works, Inc. 131 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    530 , ; , ; Fontenot v. Travelers Ins.
  • Skidmore v. Drumon Fine Foods, Inc. 130 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Hunter v. Continental Casualty Co. 126 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    211 , ; , ; Morgan v. American Bitumuls Company, 217 La.
  • Monk v. Louisiana Forestry Commission 124 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
    968 , ; , * * * In the case of Coon v. Germany Iron Works, La.App., , it was ably stated: `* * * with the pronouncements of those cases and with that in Carlino v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 196 La.
  • Sykes v. Stout Drilling Co. 124 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    In his position he is wholly incapacitated, and what little he may learn or be able to do thereafter will likely be done under greater difficulties, placing him at a disadvantage even in securing what work he may be able to perform.” Again the Supreme Court of Louisiana was faced with the same problem in the case of Wright v. National Surety Corporation et al., 1932, , .
  • Broussard v. Dumas Chevrolet Company 120 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Fruge v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co., 226 La.
  • Sumrall v. JC Penney Company 120 So. 2d 67 La. 1960
    In support of his contention that he is entitled to the statutory penalties and attorney’s , ; Fruge v. Pacific Employers Ins.
  • Davis v. United Fruit Company 120 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    [4] 1955, , , see footnote 2.
  • Garland v. Audubon Insurance Company 119 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
  • Darby v. Johnson 118 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    530 , ; , ; Hale v. Republic Drilling Co., La.
  • Seal v. Lionel F. Favret Company 113 So. 2d 468 La. 1959
  • Spears v. Traders & General Insurance 111 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Cited in support of the position taken are — , ; Fruge v. Pacific Mutual Insurance Co., 326 La.
  • Cain v. Employers Casualty Company 110 So. 2d 108 La. 1959
    “The application of the provisions of the Insurance Code, as to penalties, including attorneys’ fees, was recognized in Wright v. National Surety Corporation, 1952, , , where an attorney’s fee was fixed and assessed against the employer’s insurer pursuant to such statute.
  • Pohl v. American Bridge Division US Steel Corp. 109 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    As was pointed out in the Wright case [Wright v. National Surety Corp.], ( , 59 So.2d [695,] 697), `The question here, as in all these cases, is whether plaintiff is "disabled to do work of any reasonable character" within the intendment of the compensation statute.'" [ 224 La.
  • Humphreys v. Marquette Casualty Co. 103 So. 2d 895 La. 1958
    We conclude that the refusal to pay benefits was arbitrary, , , * * * » The doctrine above mentioned is to the effect that: “It is seen that the statute, which is written into the policy, makes it the direct obligation of the insurer to pay the injured employee.
  • Green v. Harper 103 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    Bean v. Higgins, Inc., supra; , ; Morgan v. American Bitumuls Co., 217 La.
  • Trahan v. Louisiana State Rice Milling Company 100 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
  • Hall v. Pipe Line Service Corporation 98 So. 2d 202 La. 1957
    This we will not do.” , .
  • Cain v. Employers Casualty Company 96 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
    The application of the provisions of the Insurance Code, as to penalties including attorneys' fees, was recognized in Wright v. National Surety Corporation, 1952, , , where an attorney's fee was fixed and assessed against the employer's insurer pursuant to such statute.
  • Guillory v. Coal Operators Casualty Company 95 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Patterson v. Cargo Services 95 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    22:658, , ; Fruge v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, 226 La.
  • Nichols v. Iowa Mutual Insurance Company 95 So. 2d 338 La. 1957
  • Reed v. Calcasieu Paper Co. 93 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Flanagan v. Welch 93 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    the Supreme Court considered just such a situation and *40 held the insurer liable under the cited section of the Revised Statutes.
  • Bean v. Higgins, Inc. 88 So. 2d 30 La. 1956
  • McAlister v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 87 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
  • Welch v. Newport Industries 86 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    He is therefore totally disabled within the meaning of our Compensation Act, , ; Estilette v. United States Fidelity and Casualty Co., La.App.
  • Bickham v. Lester J. Danner, Inc. 86 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
  • Washington v. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. 85 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    22:658 and the case of Wright v. National Surety Corporation, 1952, , .
  • Gloston v. Coal Operators Casualty Co. 85 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    and Richard v. Traders & General Ins.
  • Michel v. Maryland Casualty Company 81 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    We feel that under the jurisprudence, Michel is totally rather than partially disabled; , ; Fruge v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, La.App., 1 Cir., , affirmed on other grounds 226 La.
  • Geter v. Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford 79 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    Wright v. National Surety Co., 1952, , .
  • Cummings v. Albert 86 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    Fruge v. Pacific Employers Ins.
  • Fruge v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company 76 So. 2d 719 La. 1954
    in which penalties and attorney’s fees were allowed.
  • Watson v. Floyd Electric Company 75 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    Brannon v. Zurich, supra.
  • Fruge v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. 71 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
  • Daigle v. Great American Indemnity Co. 70 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    was held to be capricious and arbitrary under the facts in that case, then there is no doubt that the refusal in this case was capricious and arbitrary.
  • Madison v. Hornsby 69 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    and Richard v. Traders & General Ins.
  • Moore v. Aysen 69 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    the plaintiff suffered an injury causing a 60% impairment in his arm.
  • Wallace v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 68 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
  • Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. 69 So. 2d 1 La. 1953
    ersal of our jurisprudence that an employee who is by training, experience, status, and education, engaged in a specialized trade and his injury prevents him continuing in-that trade, is totally and permanently disabled within the meaning and contemplation of the compensation statute of this state, , , where this identical contention was urged and decided to the contrary, this court reiterating what has-been, since Knispel v. Gulf States Utilities Company, 174 La.
  • Scott v. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills 65 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1953
  • Rouse v. Globe Indemnity Co. 65 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    He predicated his legal conclusions upon the very recent case, decided by the Supreme Court, Wright v. National Surety Corporation, 1952, , , the rationale of which is succinctly set forth in syllabus 1 thereof; plaintiff, the “operator of asphalt distributor machine used in surfacing blacktop roads was a ‘skilled laborer,’ and, on sustaining fracture of right arm resulting in 60 percent limitation of supination and pronation of arm, so tha
  • Richard v. Traders & General Ins. 62 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    We think that the compensation judgment should be amended so as to inclúde penalties and attorney’s , .