DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Trappey v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 86 So. 2d 515.

29 citing documents.

  • Daphne Reissland v. Valluzzo Companies, LLC La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    632, (1956); Green v. Heard Motors Co., 224 La.
  • Orozco v. Aries Building Systems, Inc. 202 So. 3d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    In Trappey v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co.[, , (1956)],[footnote omitted] the Supreme Court reasoned that when a person belongs to a partnership and also by contract receives wages not dependent on the profit or loss experience of the partnership, so that his working and pay relationship were contractually separate from the partnership agreement, he
  • Falcon Drilling Co. v. Transamerican Energy, Ltd. 622 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Marcus’s specifications of error are that the trial court erred: (1) in implicitly overruling the two Louisiana Supreme Court decisions of Trappey v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., , (1956), and E.B.
  • Fusilier v. Liberty Rice Mill, Inc. 569 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • Johnson v. Travelers Ins. Co. 509 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Co. , (1956); Green v. Heard Motors Co., 224 La.
  • Beninate v. Bruno 497 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • Brazzell v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 433 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    The trial court relied on Trappey v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, , (La.App.
  • Wolf v. Whitney 424 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    226 , (1958); and Trappey v. Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Company, , (1956) and cases cited therein.
  • Cooley v. Slocum 326 So. 2d 491 La. 1976
  • Dupuy v. Parish Contractors, Inc. 275 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
  • Bersuder v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 273 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
    (1956), stated, inter alia, that a partnership is a separate and distinct entity from its partners and that a partner can be an employee of the partnership.
  • DeSoto v. Tusa Bros., Inc. 273 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Davis v. PIONEER BANK & TRUST COMPANY 272 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
    940 , (1970); , (1956); E. B. Hayes Machinery Co. v. Eastham, 147 La.
  • Cockerham v. Consolidated Underwriters 262 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
    In further support of this theory, , (1956).
  • Leger v. Townsend 257 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
    Obviously, , (1956) wherein the Supreme Court held that a partner when performing regular duties for a partnership could be an employee of the partnership and qualify for workmen's compensation benefits.
  • State v. Morales 240 So. 2d 714 La. 1970
    The dissent of Mr. Justice McCaleb relied upon the case of Trappey v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., , , decided only one year before Peterson.
  • Manuel v. Jennings Lumber Co. 231 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Apex Sales Company v. Abraham 201 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    Coast v. Hunt Oil Co., 195 F.2d 870 (5 Cir.); Esteve Bros. & Co. v. Harrell, 272 F. 382 (5 Cir.).
  • Robinson v. Houston Fire & Casualty Co. 200 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Co., , , so that a partner does not own an individual interest in movables owned by the partnership, Sugar v. State, 243 La.
  • Little v. Caterpillar Tractor Company 169 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Carpenter v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 159 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Plaintiff relies on the case of Trappey v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, , in which the injured claimant was working as the manager and supervisor of a beverage plant at the time of the accident.
  • Sugar v. State ex rel. Collector of Revenue 142 So. 2d 401 La. 1962
    536 , we said that “partnership property belongs to the partnership, and not to the partners, whose interest is only in the residue after liquidation.” The foregoing principles were reiterated, affirmed, and enlarged upon, in the case of Trappey v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., , .
  • Smith v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 116 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    The judgment of the trial court, in awarding plaintiff compensation subject to a credit for the weeks he continues in his employment at full wages, is in accord with the spirit, intent, and purpose of the compensation statute to provide funds to sustain the injured employee while he cannot provide for himself ( , ; Barr v. Davis Bros. Lumber Co., Limited, 183 La.
  • Quarles v. Albritton 116 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    In the recent case of Trappey v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, , , our Supreme Court said: “Under our civil law system, unlike that of the common law, a partnership is an abstract ideal being with legal relations separate and distinct from those of its individual members; as was very aptly said by this Court more than a century ago, ‘The partnership once formed
  • Modicut v. Rist 98 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Lynch v. Culpepper 96 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    We recognize, of course, the definition of a partnership and its implications as to the responsibility of its individual members as reflected in the case of Trappey v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, 1956, , .
  • State v. Peterson 95 So. 2d 608 La. 1957
    271 .” See, also, Trappey v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., , ; Sharman v. Phillips, 228 La.
  • Stovall v. Solomon 94 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    The Supreme Court in Trappey v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., , , recognized a partner’s right to compensation as against a partnership of which he was a member.
  • Kline v. Dawson 89 So. 2d 385 La. 1956
    89 and Trappey v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., , .