Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ellis v. Travelers Insurance Company, 129 So. 2d 729.

18 citing documents.

Eddie Bourque, Jr., Et Ux. v. Anco Insulations, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Bourque v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC. 25 So. 3d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Logan v. Louisiana Dock Co., Inc. 541 So. 2d 182 La. 1989
Co., , (1961), which was relied upon by the Court of Appeal.
Logan v. Louisiana Dock Co. 526 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Beverly v. Action Marine Services, Inc. 433 So. 2d 139 La. 1983
The trial court sustained the exceptions, holding that plaintiffs' exclusive remedy was under the federal law because their deceased son was engaged in maritime activity and injured on navigable waters, , (1961).
Beverly v. Action Marine Services, Inc. 422 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
246 (1942), where the Court held that the boundary between federal and state schemes was not a precise line but rather a “twilight zone,” and that in doubtful cases, an injured worker could elect a federal or state remedy] , (1961), the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that the Jensen doctrine was still viable insofar as it barred the application of the Louisiana Workmens’ Compensation Act to longshoremen injured while performing maritime work on ocean going vessels, afloat in navigable waters.
Bearden v. Leon C. Breaux Towing 365 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Poche v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 339 So. 2d 1212 La. 1976
In our own court, , we were persuaded by a decision of the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit that as to a longshoreman performing maritime work at the time of injury aboard a vessel afloat on navigable waters the LHCA was the exclusive remedy.
Mott v. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Co. 247 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
(1961), at page 739: “* * * [W]e conclude that longshoremen injured while performing maritime work on ocean-going vessels, afloat on navigable waters, are not performing work so local in character as to allow them redress for their injuries under the State Workmen’s Compensation Act.
James v. Farrell 243 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
The defendants cite Hughes v. Chitty, 415 F.2d 1150 (Fifth Circuit, 1969) ; , (1961).
Jackson v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. 185 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Crooks v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. 175 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Arp v. Maryland Casualty Company 170 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
We do not think this fact would make plaintiff a , (1961); Flowers v. Travelers Insurance Company, 258 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1959); Noah v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 267 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1959).
Robinson v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. 170 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
The district judge dismissed Plaintiff’s suit, holding that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act is exclusive and is applicable to the facts of this case, citing: , (1961); Miculka v. American Mail Line, Ltd., 229 F.Supp.
Apperson v. Universal Services, Inc. 153 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
"Our Supreme Court, in the case of Ellis vs. Travelers Insurance Company et al, , , and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in the cases of Berner vs. Oil Transport Company, Inc. et al, [La.
Eubanks ex rel. Ramey v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 153 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a longshoreman employed on navigable waters was covered by the Federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act rather than the Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation Act, and plaintiff contends that in view of the Ellis case her exclusive remedy would not b
Goodart v. Maryland Casualty Company 139 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
465 , , , , these rulings were recalled and set aside, followed by judgment maintaining both and dismissing Plaintiff's suit.
Stepter v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 129 So. 2d 740 La. 1961
For the reasons assigned in , , the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, is affirmed.