DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co., 69 So. 2d 1.

95 citing documents.

  • Milliet v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 148 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Co., , ; Powell v. Travelers Insurance Company, La.App., ; Burkett v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation, La.App., .
  • Pea v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. 147 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Ray v. City of Monroe 147 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Co., , , and the authorities cited therein.
  • Anderson v. Continental Can Company 141 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    Co., , , (1953) and cases therein cited.
  • Parks v. Southern Utility Co. of Shreveport 141 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    App., (2d Cir. 1953); Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Life Insurance Company, et al., , (1953); Nubles v. Texas Gas Transmission Corporation, et al., La.App., (2d Cir. 1954); Parker v. Armour & Company, Ltd., La.App., (1956); Williams v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Company, Inc., et al., (2d Cir. 1956); and Parish v. Fidelity & Casualty
  • Hughes v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 138 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Collins v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance 138 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    170 ; Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company, , ; Wright v. National Surety Corporation, 221 La.
  • Aymonde v. State National Life Insurance Company 138 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    Co., , ; Williams v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co., Inc., La.App., ; Parker v. Armour & Co., La.App., ; Nubles v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp., La.App., ; Reeve v. Clement-Braswell Machine & Fabricating Works, La.App., 66 So.
  • Lindsey v. Continental Casualty Company 138 So. 2d 543 La. 1962
    Co., , ; Wright v. National Surety Corp., 221 La.
  • Glidden v. Alexandria Concrete Company 137 So. 2d 894 La. 1962
  • Glidden v. Alexandria Concrete Co. 137 So. 2d 894 La. 1962
    Co., , , where the rule is stated thus: “The law does not expect and it does not contemplate, that a worker, in order to make a living, must work in pain, or that he do so when it will materially increase not only the hazards of his own health and safety, but also to those of his fellow employees.” .
  • Barbara v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. 137 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Co., , , the Supreme Court said: “In the light of the facts in the instant case the plaintiff is, in our opinion, permanently and totally disabled within the meaning and contemplation of this law.
  • McGee v. Augenstein Construction Co. 137 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Co., , , and the authorities cited therein, for the proposition that a workmen’s compensation claimant will be deemed totally and permanently disabled where he cannot return to work and at the outset perform all of the duties of the same type of employment he was doing at the time of the accident.
  • Lawes v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance 135 So. 2d 920 La. 1961
    486 , , , , and Reed v. Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., 233 La.
  • Jagneaux v. Marquette Casualty Company 135 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
  • Braswell v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 135 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    The holding in Sykes v. Stout Drilling Company is in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company et al, , (1953), wherein, with Justice Fournet as its organ, the following pronouncement was made with reference to a determination of total disability: "There is, of course, no hard and fast rule that can be laid down for guidance in the application of this rule to the limitless variations of fact presented to
  • Rushing v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. 129 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Co., 1953, , ; Zito v. Standard Accident Ins.
  • Schram v. Lake Charles Ready-Mix, Inc. 125 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
    Co., , ; Thomas v. Crown-Zellerbach Corp., La.App.
  • Chapman v. Matthews 126 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    9 ; Brannon v. Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, 1953, , .
  • Hunter v. Continental Casualty Co. 126 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Co., , , and the authorities cited therein.
  • Monk v. Louisiana Forestry Commission 124 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
    Co., , ; Thomas v. Crown-Zellerbach Corp., La.App.
  • Sykes v. Stout Drilling Co. 124 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    161 , , the Supreme Court of Louisiana again reviewed this question and by very strong language, apparently attempted to forever put to rest the identical question now before us. The claimant in the cited case was a carpenter who had suffered an injury to his kneecap, which resulted in an operation.
  • Ernest v. Martin Timber Co. 124 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Co., , , and the authorities therein cited.
  • Parish v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 124 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    Co., , , that the law does not require or contemplate that a laborer, in order to earn a living, must work in pain or that he do so when it will materially increase not only the hazard to his health and safety but to that of his fellow employees.
  • Stogner v. American Motorists Insurance Co. 123 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    the Supreme Court held that a carpenter (30% disabled) was totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the Act.
  • Broussard v. Dumas Chevrolet Company 120 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Co., , , he must be declared a workman who is totally and permanently disabled from doing work of any reasonable character and he is a fit subject for workmen's compensation for such disability.
  • Jones v. Brewton 121 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    We think this conclusion is in line with the principle announced in Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Co., , , and the numerous subsequent decisions of all of the appellate courts of our State to the same effect.
  • Daniel v. Transport Insurance Co. 119 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Co., , , in which we find the following: “The law does not expect, and it does not contemplate, that a worker, in order to make a living, must work in pain, ■or that he do so when it will materially increase not only the hazards of his •own health and safety, but also to those •of his fellow employees.
  • Livaccari v. FIDELITY & CASULATY CO. OF NEW YORK 118 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Co., , , wherein the plaintiff, a carpenter, suffered an injury to his knee which necessitated surgery.
  • Powell v. Travelers Insurance Company 117 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    Co., , ; Carlino v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 196 La.
  • Smith v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 116 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    Co., , ; Reed v. Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., 233 La.
  • Bonin v. Sam Carline, Inc. 117 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Co., , ; Stansbury v. National Auto & Casualty Ins.
  • Viator v. Hub City Contractors, Inc. 116 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    747 , , 178 which followed the case of Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company, , , in which it was stated: “ ‘The law does not expect, and it does not contemplate, that a worker in order to make a living, must work in pain, or that he do so when it will materially increase not only the hazards of his own health and safety, but also to those of his fellow employees.
  • Bassemier v. WS Young Construction Co. 110 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Co., , ; Thomas v. Crown-Zellerbach Corp., La.App.
  • Pohl v. American Bridge Division US Steel Corp. 109 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    I confess that I find difficulty in distinguishing the facts here from those found in Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Co., , .
  • Moore v. Great American Indemnity Co. 106 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    Co., , ; Williams v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co., Inc., La.App., ; Parker v. Armour & Co., La.App., ; Nubles v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp., La.App., ; Reeve v. Clement-Braswell Machine & Fabricating Works, La.App., ; McDearmont v. M. I. Davis
  • Reed v. Calcasieu Paper Company 98 So. 2d 175 La. 1957
    Co., , , conscious of the intendment of the compensation statute we held as follows: “The law does not expect, and it does not contemplate, that a worker, in order to make a living, must work in pain, or that he do so when it will materially *757 increase not only the hazards of his own health and safety, but
  • Helms v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance 95 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    the Court said as follows : “In the light of the facts in the instant case, the plaintiff is, in our opinion, permanently and totally disabled within the meaning and contemplation of this law.
  • Borders v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 90 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    See Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company, , , where a carpenter able to perform only the lighter or non-climbing duties of his trade, for whose services consequently there was less market due to the residual from the accident, was held to be totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the compensation act.
  • Chase v. Pointe Coupee Parish School Board 89 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Co., , ; Washington v. Independent Ice & Cold Storage Co., 211 La.
  • Watson v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 88 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
  • Williams v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Company 87 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    Co., 1953, , , 3: "In the light of the facts in the instant case the plaintiff is, in our opinion, permanently and totally disabled within the meaning and contemplation of this law.
  • Parker v. Armour & Co. 86 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Co., 1953, , , the Supreme Court, in awarding total permanent disability to an injured workman, stated “The law does not expect, and it does not contemplate, that a worker, in order to make a living, must work in pain * * In the case referred to hereinabove, while it is true that the injured employee was one design
  • Watson v. Floyd Electric Company 75 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    23:1021 et seq., in view of the holding of the Supreme Court in the case of Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Co., , , and our holding in the case of Loflin v. Erectors & Riggers, La.App., , and Strother v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., La.App., .
  • Shaw v. Swift & Co. 74 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    & Liability Ins, Co., , ; Lee v. International Paper Co., La.App., ; Gilmore v. George W. Garig Transfer, Inc., ; Reeve v. Clement-Braswell Machine and Fabricating Works; .