DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Moity v. Mahfouz, 137 So. 2d 514.

37 citing documents.

  • Brown v. Brown 745 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    3 Cir.), writ denied, , (1961).
  • Goins v. Goins 437 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    1031 , ; Moity v. Mahfouz, La.App., , writ denied, , ; State v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, La.App., .
  • Le Blanc v. Le Blanc 404 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    1031 , ; Moity v Mahfouz, La.App., , writ denied, , ; and State v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, La.App., .
  • Norman v. Phil-A-Sac, Inc. 368 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    in which the driver of a cement-mixer truck contracted cement dermatitis.
  • Randall v. Roran Corp. 342 So. 2d 867 La. 1977
    Art. V. § 10(A); , (1961); 38 Tulane Law Review 429 (1964).
  • Lowe v. St. Tammany Parish School Board 341 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Disabling pain, , (1962), is: “The pain must be substantial enough to be disabling in that it either prevents the worker from carrying out some of the functions of his job or, where the pain is not so intense as to hinder the worker’s fulfillment of his duties, it must be shown that performance of the work would be dele
  • Armstrong v. Gulf States Fishing & Rental Tools, Inc. 338 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Dupard v. M & C Construction Co., La.App., .
  • Dupard v. M & C CONSTRUCTION CO. 312 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
  • Sanders v. Boh Bros. Construction Co. 304 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Glid- *817 , (1962); (La.App.
  • Grigsby v. Argonaut Insurance Company 297 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    [626], (1962), the Supreme Court stated: "...
  • Carroll v. Southern Casualty Insurance Company 285 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    (1962); Lavergne v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins.
  • Davis v. Home Insurance Company 291 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
    3rd Cir. 1972); , (1962); (La.App.
  • Walker v. Allen 281 So. 2d 693 La. 1973
    1033 , (1968); , (1961).
  • Ourso v. Ourso 278 So. 2d 133 La. 1973
  • Ory v. Metal Building Products Co. 265 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    515 , (1963); , (1962); Heed v. Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., 233 La.
  • Bonck v. Plimsoll Club, Inc. 254 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1961) ; Tolbert v. Thomas, 245 La.
  • Sholes v. Gulf Building Service 234 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (1962), applied aiimitation of the principle and said at p. 897: “It would be illogical, however, to treat this doctrine as encompassing all degrees of discomfort and make a complete or ‘good-as-new’ recovery essential before an.
  • James v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 230 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    the medical testimony shows that, because of silicosis, plaintiff will impair his health to a greater degree by continuation of his occupation as a sandblaster, the fact remains that plaintiff has continued to work at the same job for the same employer without undue pain or discomfort and, therefore, he cannot be regarded as disabled.” , , our Supreme Court held as follows : “The question, then, is whether plaintiff’s skin condition constitutes total disability with regard to the driving of truc
  • Wall v. Wall 230 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    In refusing to review that matter further and with particular reference to the question of jurisdiction our Supreme Court stated ( , ): "* * * The errors complained of by relator do not justify this Court in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction.
  • Guidry v. Gianfala & Son, Inc. 228 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Veuleman v. Bituminous Casualty Corp. 223 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    See also: , ; Reed v. Calcasieu Paper Co., 233 La.
  • Tyler v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. 212 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    (1962), stated: “ ‘It would be illogical, however, to treat this doctrine as encompassing all degrees of discomfort and make a complete or ‘good-as-new’ recovery essential before an employer may stop compensation payments.
  • Gallagher v. Gallagher 212 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Cf. Per Curiam, Supreme Court in refusing writs, , .
  • Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. England 208 So. 2d 318 La. 1968
  • Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Eastman 208 So. 2d 318 La. 1968
    (per curiam), and Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Boyd, 251 La.
  • Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Boyd 208 So. 2d 321 La. 1968
  • Advertiser, Division of the Independent, Inc. v. Tubbs 199 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    (1961); Tolbert v. Thomas, 245 La.
  • Haynes v. Atlas Construction Co. 199 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    With regard to the sensitization issue, , and stated “ * * * The Court found that the facts available were insufficient for it to determine whether or not bodily exertion and its resultant increase in body temperature and production of perspiration would retard plaintiff’s recovery and remanded the case for the taking of this essential medical
  • Landry v. Central Excavation Co. 196 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    626, (1962); Loflin v. Erectors and Riggers, Inc., (La.App.
  • Bellard v. Insurance Co. of North America 193 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Wright v. National Surety Corp., 221 La.
  • Flowers v. EM Toussel Oil Co. 190 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    515 , ; , ; Boucvalt v. Boucvalt, 233 La.
  • Robinson v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 181 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Usually, for instance, before a remand is ordered, the record should affirmatively indicate a hiatus in type or date of examination, taking into consideration the type of injury claimed (cf., , ), or at least a reasonable indication that additional evidence exists which is lacking from the record but which may be sufficient to justify an award of compensation by its supplement of substantial evidence already in the record (cf. Rawls v. Dixie Drilling Co., La.App.
  • Taylor v. Meeker Sugar Cooperative, Inc. 177 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    In Glidden v. Alexandria Concrete Company, Inc., et al., , , our Supreme Court set out the following rule which we think is applicable here: “It would be illogical, however, to treat this doctrine as encompassing all degrees of discomfort and make a complete or ‘good-as-new’ recovery essential before an employer may stop compensation payments.
  • Smith v. Travelers Insurance Company 174 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    As the Anderson decision notes, , quoting from Professor Malone's treatise: "`As the extent of skill required in the work performed prior to accident increases, there should be a correspondingly increased insistence that the new work closely resemble the old.'" , .
  • Lavergne v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 171 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Murphy v. Baton Rouge Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App.
  • Tolbert v. Thomas 157 So. 2d 737 La. 1963
  • Anderson v. Rowan Drilling Company 150 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    3 Cir., (judgment annulled and set aside in part, , ), plaintiff was employed by defendant as a cement truck driver, a job requiring him to operate the loading and unloading mechanisms of the trucks and to come in contact with wet and dry cement.