Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Domas v. Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, 79 So. 2d 857.

14 citing documents.

Louisiana Civil Service League v. Forbes 246 So. 2d 800 La. 1971
Suire v. Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology 224 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Konen v. New Orleans Police Department, supra; , and Foster v. Department of Public Welfare, supra.
Guillory v. State Department of Institutions, Louisiana State Penitentiary 219 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Johnson v. State Department of Institutions 198 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Miller v. State Department of Health, La.App., ; , .
Boucher v. Division of Employment Security 171 So. 2d 476 La. 1965
of Dept. of Labor, , and Anderson v. Division of Employ.
Boucher v. Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor 169 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department, 226 La.
Carr v. New Orleans Police Department 144 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
739 , ; Domas v. Division of Employment, 1955, , ; Gervais v. New Orleans Police Dept., 1955, 226 La.
Foster v. Department of Public Welfare 144 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Hays v. Wild Life and Fisheries Commission 136 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
399 , ; , ; Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department, 226 La.
Colvin v. Division of Employment Security 132 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
as being decisive of the issues involved in this case, representing that same presents an identical issue as the one herein involved.
King v. Dept. of Public Safety of the State of Louisiana 108 So. 2d 524 La. 1959
Reed v. Louisiana Wild Life & Fisheries Commission 102 So. 2d 869 La. 1958
Whether the discussed cause was sufficient and reasonable for removing appellant from the service is, as above shown, a question of fact which we are without jurisdiction to decide.” Particularly in point, and clearly decisive, , .
Cottingham v. Department of Revenue 94 So. 2d 662 La. 1957
in which we further said: "Answering the contention presented under the fifth assignment of error that cause for dismissal was illegal and not justifiable under the circumstances in which, at the time, he found himself, we conclude that this involves purely the reasonableness of the cause based u
Cottingham v. Department of Revenue 94 So. 2d 662 La. 1957
in which we further said: “Answering the contention presented under the fifth assignment of error that cause for dismissal was illegal and not justifiable under the circumstances in which, at the time, he found himself, we conclude that this involves purely the reasonableness of the cause based u