DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stevens v. Mitchell, 102 So. 2d 237.

25 citing documents.

  • PDT, INC. v. Bell 666 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    See Andrews v. Spearsville Timber Company, Inc., , (1958).
  • Andrews v. Spearsville Timber Co., Inc. 343 So. 2d 1008 La. 1977
    For example, , (1958), the principal led the contractor to believe that the principal would obtain workmen's compensation insurance for the employees of the contractor, and collected from the contractor insurance premiums for that purpose.
  • Andrews v. Spearsville Timber Co. 335 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Woodard v. Southern Casualty Insurance Co. 305 So. 2d 528 La. 1974
    Sup.Ct.1973); , (1957); Jones v. Hennessy, 232 La.
  • Bellard v. Tri-State Insurance Company 282 So. 2d 453 La. 1973
    (1957); Jones v. Hennessy, 232 La.
  • Hart v. Richardson 272 So. 2d 316 La. 1973
  • Bellard v. Tri-State Insurance 265 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    tractor, where he “undertakes to execute any work, which is a part of his trade, business, or occupation.” Our jurisprudence is established that the cutting and hauling of timber is a part of the trade, business or occupation of a person who manufactures lumber or buys and sells timber, Collier v. Southern Casualty Insurance Company, La.App., (3rd Cir. 1966) , (1958).
  • Broussard v. Heebe's Bakery, Inc. 254 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
  • Jones v. Southern Tupelo Lumber Co. 244 So. 2d 815 La. 1971
  • Collier ex rel. Collier v. Southern Casualty Insurance 186 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Jones v. Hennessey, 232 La.
  • Distinguished Guillory v. Farrar 182 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Townsend v. International Paper Co. 166 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Jones v. Hennessy, 232 La.
  • Richardson v. Jones 163 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    In support of this argument counsel for plaintiff cites Garner v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance Co., La.App., ; Hano v. Kinchen, La.App., ; , and Carpenter v. Madden, La.
  • Bryant v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 163 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    99 ; , ; Kline v. Dawson, 230 La.
  • Redding v. Cade 158 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    In our opinion, , , Jones v. Hennessey, 232 La.
  • Garner v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance 149 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    786 , ; , ; Hatten v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, La.App., .
  • Dunn v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance 141 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    (1958), on rehearing; Hano v. Kinchen (La.App.
  • Brown v. Stephens Buick Company 139 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Fisk v. Kildare Truck Line, Inc., La.App., ; , ; Kline v. Globe Automobile Finance Company, La.
  • Tarver v. John W. Fisk Co. 140 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    In support of the fourth assignment of error which is founded on the doctrine of equitable estoppel, , ; Hano v. Kinchen, et al., La.App., , and Carpenter v. Madden, La.App., .
  • Lee v. City of Baton Rouge 141 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    See also Stevens v. Mitchell, Sup.Ct.1958, , .
  • Alexander v. Clemons Bros. Lumber Co. 135 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    901 , ; , ; Jones v. Hennessy, 232 La.
  • Cerie v. Malone 125 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
    In the case of Stevens v. Mitchell, et al., , it was held that where among other things, the party cutting the timber was required to deliver it to a designated person that the vendor-vendee relationship did not exist.
  • Hano v. Kinchen 122 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    In this connection considerable reliance is placed by counsel for plaintiff on the jurisprudence established in Carpenter v. Madden, La.App., , , , wherein under circumstances somewhat similar to those herein involved, pleas of estoppel were sustained.
  • Williams v. Marionneaux 116 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    See also Stevens v. Mitchell, Sup.Ct.1958, , .
  • Hatten v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. 112 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959