DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., 86 So. 2d 522.

86 citing documents.

  • Tolley v. James Construction Group, LLC 202 So. 3d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    4/10/95), ; quoting Swearingen v. Air Products & Chem., Inc., and Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc.
  • Tommy Manucy v. Joe Mancuy Racing La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    & Chem., Inc., Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., So.2d 522, 525).
  • Manucy v. Joe Manucy Racing 34 So. 3d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    & Chem., Inc., ; Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , ).
  • Darryl Hinnard v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Co., Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., So.2d 522, 526 (1956); Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Co., 227 La.
  • Shane Richard v. Machine Specialty & Mfg. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    (quoting Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., So.2d 522, 526 (1956)).
  • Richard v. Machine Specialty & Mfg., Inc. 921 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    (quoting Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956)).
  • Winford v. Conerly Corp. 897 So. 2d 560 La. 2005
    & Chem., Inc., ; Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , ).
  • Brenda White v. Phoenix Pharmacy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Co., Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., So.2d 522, 526 (1956); Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Co., 227 La.
  • White v. Phoenix Pharmacy 870 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Co., Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , 86 So.2d *596 522, 526 (1956); Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Co., 227 La.
  • Desselle v. Dresser Indus. Valve 689 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Co., Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956); Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Co., 227 La.
  • Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 652 So. 2d 1323 La. 1995
    Co., Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956); Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Co., 227 La.
  • Glascock v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 635 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    941 , (1955); Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956); Harris v. Seaboard Fire & Marine Ins.
  • Ponville v. Travelers Insurance Co. 591 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Bolden v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co., , ” (Underlining provided.)
  • Melancon v. Hartford Ins. Co. 545 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    Bolden v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co.
  • Bernard v. WOODROW WILSON CONST. CO., INC. 526 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956).
  • Olson v. Cardinal Wireline Specialist 502 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Basically, the development of the injury rule relied upon by the trial court dates back to Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956).
  • Cedotal v. Wausau Ins. Co. 497 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Plaintiff, in her appellate brief, cites several cases for the proposition that a work-related injury does not develop for prescriptive purposes until the plaintiff manifests an inability to work, including Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956); Bolden v. Georgia Cas.
  • Gales v. Gold Bond Bldg. Products 493 So. 2d 611 La. 1986
    Danielson v. Security Van Lines, Inc., Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956); Jones v. Hunsicker, 188 La.
  • Fontenot v. Sunland Construction 482 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , ; Bassemier v. W.S.
  • Swearingen v. Air Products & Chemical, Inc. 481 So. 2d 122 La. 1986
    See, e.g., Bolden v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co., -22 (La.1978); Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956); Harris v. Seaboard Fire & Marine Insurance, supra ; (La.App.
  • Loud v. Dixie Metal Co., Inc. 475 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Cheatham v. Morrison, Inc. 469 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    1978); Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956).
  • Pelt v. Guardsmark, Inc. 451 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    In determining the date that the injury develops, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc. [ ,] (1956): `Development as applied to a compensation injury, signifies something more than occurrence and pain.
  • Faucheux v. Hooker Chemical Corp. 440 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    In determining the date that the injury develops, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , : "Development, as applied to a compensable injury, signifies something more than occurrence and pain.
  • Gipson v. Dresser Industrial Valve Operations 428 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    653, 657 , (1952), and Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956), has evolved the jurisprudential rule that ‘development of injury’ means the time from which the employee can no longer pursue his trade and occupation.
  • Lirette v. Chromalloy American Corp. 424 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    See Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., [ , ] supra.
  • Beverly v. State Through Dept. of Health 424 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    1012 , -89 (1964); Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , -26 (1956); Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Company, Inc., 227 La.
  • Puglisi v. Saia Motor Freight Lines 422 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    23:1209, and Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956), rehearing denied, March 26, 1956.
  • Thomas v. Barker's Department Store 419 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    23:1209, Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956) and Bolden v. Georgia Cas.
  • Palmer v. Carter Federal Credit Union 397 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The injury is sufficiently developed to toll prescription whenever the “disability to perform work becomes manifest either to the injured employee or his employer.” Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956).
  • Stewart v. Hospitals Affiliates Intern., Inc. of Baton Rouge 394 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956).
  • Barker v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 380 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    23:1209, is jurisprudentially interpretated by Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956), and by Bolden v. Georgia Cas.
  • Bolden v. Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. 363 So. 2d 419 La. 1978
    In upholding this position, the intermediate court essentially relied upon our statement in Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956): "Development, as applied to a compensable injury, signifies something more than occurrence and pain.
  • Graver v. Zeeman Enterprises, Inc. 362 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    653 , (1952); Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956); Bourgeois v. Brown & Root, Inc., (La.App.
  • Bolden v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. 353 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    941 , (1955), and Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956).
  • Strange v. Commercial Insurance Co. of Newark 346 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    653, 657 , (1952), and Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956), has evolved the jurisprudential rule that ‘development of injury’ means the time from which the employee can no longer pursue *754 his trade and occupation.
  • Williams v. International Lubricant Corp. 341 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
  • Harris v. Seaboard Fire & Marine Ins. Company 337 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    1012 , (1964); Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956); Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Company, 227 La.
  • Hebert v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 331 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    941 , (1955); and Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc. et al, , (1956).
  • Burns v. WH Patterson Construction Company 310 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956); Mottet v. Libby-Owens-Ford Glass Co., 220 La.
  • Bourgeois v. Brown & Root, Inc. 303 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    In Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , , the Supreme Court, in a case whose facts are similar to those of the instant case, held that plaintiff's claim had not prescribed and said the following: "The court, in Mottet v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., supra [ 220 La.
  • Seago v. Continental Casualty Co. 294 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    653, 657 , (1952), and Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956), have evolved the jurisprudential rule that ‘development of injury’ means the time from which the employee can no longer pursue his trade and occupation.
  • Allen v. Milk Haulers, Inc. 278 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    653 , (1952) and in Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956) found that prescription does not begin to run until the time the workman is unable to substantially perform the duties of his employment.
  • Charleston v. Veri-Fresh Poultry Company, Inc. 273 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    941 , ; Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , ."
  • Ancor v. Belden Concrete Products, Inc. 256 So. 2d 122 La. 1971
    1012 , (1964); Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956).
  • Kaupp v. City of New Orleans 248 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
    Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , ; Bigham v. Swift & Co., 229 La.
  • Allen v. Freiler Industries, Inc. 246 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    653 , ; Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , , and Watson v. United States Tobacco Co., La.App., (writs denied), we concluded that the phrase ‘development of injury’ must be interpreted as meaning the time from which an employee can no longer pursue his trade or occupation.” The Supreme Court, in Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., 229 L
  • Hobley v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company 233 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    653, 657 , (1952), and Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , (1956), has evolved the jurisprudential rule that "development of injury" means the time from which the employee can no longer pursue his trade and occupation.
  • Winters v. City of Shreveport 230 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    653 , and Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , .” The causal connection between the plaintiff’s disability and the injury suffered on December 23, 1963 has been established by the plaintiff by more than a reasonable preponderance of the evidence.
  • Morris v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Co. 228 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    941 , ; Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., , ; Brewster v. City of Shreveport, La.App., ; Mottet v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., 220 La.