DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Amyx v. Henry & Hall, 79 So. 2d 483.

64 citing documents.

  • Randy Pilet v. Pilet Distributors, the Estate of Steve Pilet, Big Boy Distributor, L.L.C., Allstate Insurance Company, Milton … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
    Further, “[i]t has been held that being terminable at the will of either party, alone, is sufficient, when considering the other circumstances of the employment, to signify that the contract created a relationship of master and servant.” Id.; Amyx v. Henry & Hall, 79 So.
  • Jeansonne v. SCHMOLKE 40 So. 3d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Tate v. Progressive Security Insurance Co. 4 So. 3d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Harrington v. Hebert 789 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    See Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955); Lewis, (La.App.
  • Singletary v. Fridley 762 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Bellard v. Castille 759 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Cooley v. Benson Motor Co. of New Orleans 695 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Bob v. Benoit 673 So. 2d 1321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Simon v. Orange Leader Newspaper, Inc. 647 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955); (La.App.
  • Berry v. STATE THROUGH DHHR 625 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Lewis v. Teacher's Pet, Inc. 621 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955)."
  • Avery v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 621 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955)."
  • Lorentz v. Coblentz 600 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall
  • Urbeso v. Bryan 583 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    4th Cir.1977), writ denied quoting Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Urbeso v. Bryan 583 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    4th Cir.1977), writ denied quoting Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Glover v. DIVING SERVICES INTERN. 577 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Stovall v. Shell Oil Co. 577 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    102 , (1972); Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Stutes v. Rossclaire Construction, Inc. 575 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955)."
  • Salard v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc. 563 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    See also Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Smith v. Hughes Wood Products, Inc. 544 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    See Amyx vs. Henry & Hall, , where the Supreme Court said: `In determining the nature of a contract as is here presented, the many factors growing out of its terms and conditions, including the attitude of the contracting parties, are to be considered.
  • Fuller v. US Aircraft Ins. Group 530 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    App. 2d Cir.1973), writ denied Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Weems v. Hickman 524 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955)."
  • Sparks v. Progressive American Ins. Co. 517 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Smith v. Zellerbach 486 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Hickman v. Southern Pacific Transport Company, 262 La.102, (1972); Amyx v. Henry & Hall, 227 La.364, (1955).
  • Sampay v. Morton Salt Co. 482 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Roberts v. State, Through Louisiana Health & Human Resources Administration, Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Hemphill v. State Farm Ins. Co. 472 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    102 , (1972), and Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Poynor v. Cure 443 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    See, Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Winston v. Bourgeois, Bennett, Thokey and Hickey 432 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    2d Cir.1976), Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • NAPASCO INTERN., INC., WESTERN DIV. v. Maxson 420 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Simpson v. Kelly Services, Inc., supra; Amyx v. Henry & Hall
  • Slaughter v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. 415 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Arledge v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. 401 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    102 , (1972); Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955); (La.App.
  • Tardo v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERV., INC. 353 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    In order to determine whether Hamilton was an independent contractor or an employee we look to Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955), where the Court said that the term independent contractor connotes freedom of action and choice with respect to the undertaking.
  • Maxwell v. Bernard 343 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    364 , (1955) that: "`An independent contractor is one who renders service in the course of an occupation representing the will of his employer only as to the result of his work, and not as to the means by which it is accomplished.'" (La.App.
  • Simpson v. Kelly Services, Inc. 339 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    p. 100.'" Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , .
  • Target Rental Towel, Inc. v. Byrd 341 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    Simpson v. Kelly Services, Inc., Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Odom v. Eaves 311 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    102 , (1972), and Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Verrett v. Houma Newspapers, Inc. 305 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    The test for determining whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee was set forth by the Supreme Court in Amyx v. Henry & Hall et al., , , as follows: "The term `independent contractor', as was said in the case of Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., 187 So.
  • Beard v. Jordano 284 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    In support of the proposition that at the time of the accident Finch and Jordano, Jr. were employees of the lumber corporation plaintiff relies heavily upon the case of Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , , cited by the trial judge in his reasons for judgment as authority for his finding that the construction company was not an independent contractor with respect to the corporation but was an employee.
  • Watson v. Tippen 279 So. 2d 697 La. 1973
    TATE, J., is of the opinion that a writ should be granted since the rationale is inconsistent with those in Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955) and Hickman v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 262 La.
  • Hickman Ex Rel. Iles v. Southern Pacific Transport Co. 262 So. 2d 385 La. 1972
    Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955).
  • Robicheaux v. Frederick 257 So. 2d 183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Collins v. Joseph 250 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
    The court is of the opinion that this procedure meets the tests of an independent contractor as set out in the case of Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955), relied upon by plaintiff.
  • Cummings v. Providence Washington Insurance Co. 242 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Plaintiff appealed from the summary judgment, contending that the trial court erred in holding that Ray Thornhill was an independent contractor; and that the decision was in conflict with the case of Amyx v. Henry & Hall, et al., , (1955).
  • Blanchard v. Ogima 200 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    The conten *381 tion is untenable in view of our findings above set forth, but cited in support of this contention is Amyx v. Henry & Hall, 1955, , .
  • Yates v. KTBS, Inc. 197 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    The difference between a master and servant relationship and that of an independent contractor has been set forth and discussed thoroughly in two rather recent decisions: Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955); Suckle v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (La.App.
  • Johnson v. Dabbs 194 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    In Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , , is contained the following : “The term 'independent contractor’, as was said in the case of Gallaher v. Rick-etts, La.App., 187 So.
  • Peterson v. Continental Can Co. 194 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    We think the following tort cases adequately discuss the problem and are analogous to the instant case: Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , (1955); Malloy v. Buckner-Harmon Wood Contractors (La.App.
  • Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance v. Willis 179 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    The test to be applied in determining whether a person who is engaged to do a certain work is an independent contractor or an employee is set out in Amyx v. Henry & Hall et al., , , as follows: “The term ‘independent contractor’, as was said in the case of Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., 187 So.
  • Averette v. Travelers Insurance Company 174 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    516 , 5 Cir., 187 F.2d 27 ; Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , ; Eames v. Alexandria Contracting Co. Inc., La.App., 154 So.
  • Little v. Caterpillar Tractor Company 169 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    See Amyx v. Henry & Hall, , 79 So.