Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Caddo Contracting Co. v. Johnson, 64 So. 2d 177.

19 citing documents.

Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co. 354 So. 2d 1031 La. 1978
23-1231, 1232; , (1953); Malone, Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Law, Section 305 (1951; 1964 pocket part).
Ruffin v. Travelers Insurance Co. 312 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Patin v. T. L James and Company, Inc., 218 La.
Brown v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation 250 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
denied); , (1953); Flanagan v. A L & W Moore Trucking Contractors, (La.
McDermott v. Funel 247 So. 2d 567 La. 1971
See: , (1953); Patin v. T. L. James & Co., 218 La.
Stokes v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 242 So. 2d 567 La. 1970
(1953), the Supreme Court allowed three minor unacknowledged illegitimate children of the deceased employee to recover the difference between the compensation allowed to the childless widow and the maximum compensation.
Freeman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 199 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
denied); , 6 4So.2d 177 (1953) ; Flanagan v. A L & W Moore Trucking Contractors
McPhearson v. Hunt Lumber Co. 158 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Venable v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 142 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
“The use of the word ‘customarily’ , , was not intended to mean that an employee’s weekly wages would be computed upon the number of days he actually or customarily worked for the particular employer, by whom he was employed at the time of the injury.
Shuff v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 134 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
"The use of the word ` , , was not intended to mean that an employee's weekly wages would be computed upon the number of days he actually or customarily worked for the particular employer, by whom he was employed at the time of the injury.
Hoffman v. City of New Orleans 125 So. 2d 774 La. 1961
611 , ; , ; Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, 230 La.
Fontenot v. Travelers Insurance Company 125 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
Pope v. Coney 119 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
The Court of Appeal (Second Circuit, ) had ruled, , , that compensation payable must be based on aggregate earnings determined by multiplying the daily rate of pay by the number of days customarily worked.
Sepulvado v. Argonaut Underwriters Insurance Co. 111 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
611 , ; Caddo Contracting Company v. Johnson, 1953, , ; Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, 1956, 230 La.
Williams v. American Employers Insurance 103 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
atur upon a double standard of interpretation, adhering most meticulously to the enforcement of stringent restrictions and prohibitions in connection with the rights of inheritance, and, on the other hand, unblushingly approving recovery by adulterous, illegitimate offspring under the provisions of our compensation statute, , , the facts of which case are incontrovertible evidence of the verity of the adage that “truth is stranger than fiction.” Counsel for defendant calls attention to the provi
Flanagan v. A L & W Moore Trucking Contractors 100 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
it was held that the entire maximum compensation for death should be paid whenever there are several total dependents entitled to it, but, nevertheless, the existence of a member of a preferred class, such as a widow, does not foreclose those in the next succeeding class of such dependents, who were i
Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters 89 So. 2d 399 La. 1956
particularly the statement therein (taken out of context) reading: "* * * the weekly compensation award must be based on the employee's earnings at the time of his injury, and this is determined by taking his then daily rate of pay and multiplying it by the number of days customarily worked per w
Darce v. Calcasieu Paper Co. 85 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
the Supreme Court held that, where there were total dependents of varying priority, they were all entitled to compensation so long as the total compensation did not exceed 65% of deceased’s wages, or the maximum of $30 per week.
Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters 80 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
as follows: “ * * * the weekly compensation award must be based on the employee’s earnings at the time of his injury, and this is determined by taking his then daily rate of pay and multiplying it by the number of days customarily worked per week.
Gary v. Marquette Cas. Co. 72 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954