Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill and Lumber Company, 278 So. 2d 5.

52 citing documents.

Martin v. Pride Offshore Co. 950 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
‘Whenever showing with respect to requirements 17that injury arise out of and in course of the employment is relatively weak, a denial of compensation is indicated.” Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill and Lumber Company , LA 1973.
Shannon Suarez v. Lp Gaming Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
The relation between “course and scope” (quoting Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., ), as follows: “A strong showing by the claimant with reference to the arise-out-of requirement may compensate for a relatively weak showing on the during-course-of requirement, or vice versa.” 5 Under the facts in the present matter, the “course” requ
Haywood v. Dugal 772 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.
Robinson v. Simmons Co. 762 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
23: 103,1 in Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., where they stated: | s“The terms arising out of and in the course of are not synonymous.
Guillory v. Interstate Gas Station 653 So. 2d 1152 La. 1995
Pappas v. Marine Spill Response Corp. 650 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
See also, Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., ("But the question of which risk shall be included within the act and which shall be excluded cannot be decided by phrases.
Margin v. Barthelemy 638 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Defendants correctly note that "course" has been defined as during the time of employment and at a place contemplated by the employment citing Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc.
Colletti v. Port Noma, Ltd. 625 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
(citing Malone, Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation, §§ 162, 192 (1st ed.)).
Benoit v. Capitol Mfg. Co. 617 So. 2d 477 La. 1993
Malveaux v. American Manufacturing Co. 597 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
The court in Jackson, supra, cited approvingly: “The determination of coverage is a subjective one in that each case must be decided from all of its particular facts.”
Tuminello v. Willis Knighton Medical Center 597 So. 2d 1089 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
In Lisonbee v. Chocago Mill & Lumber Co., the supreme court discussed the interdependence between the "arising out of" and "in the course of" requirements.
Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources 580 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
(citing Malone, Louisiana Workmen's Compensation, Sections 162, 192 (1st ed.)) Judicial experience has taught that these two elements, arising out of and in the course of, should not be understood as entirely separate requirements to be rigidly and independently exacted.
Meaux v. Cormier 554 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill and Lumber Company, supra [ ] at 9 [(1973)].
Duncan v. South Cent. Bell Telephone 554 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
(hereinafter referred to as Lisonbee ), the Supreme Court held that the two doctrines were not completely independent of each other but rather must be considered together.
Carruthers v. PPG Industries, Inc. 551 So. 2d 1282 La. 1989
Guidry, supra ; Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., (La.
Davis v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 552 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Williams v. Regional Transit Authority 546 So. 2d 150 La. 1989
Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.
Carruthers v. PPG Industries, Inc. 543 So. 2d 472 La. 1989
Guidry, supra; Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.
Dehart v. Betty Breaux Personnel, Inc. 535 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Company
Glory v. ZUPPARDO'S ECONO. SUPERMARKET, INC. 532 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
(citing Malone, Louisiana Workmen's Compensation, Sections 162, 192 (1st ed.)).
LaFleur v. Swallow's Rice Mills 532 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
(citing Malone, Louisiana Worker's Compensation, §§ 162, 192 (1st ed.)).
Ducote v. Albert 521 So. 2d 399 La. 1988
Kern v. Southport Mill, 174 La.
Raybol v. Louisiana State University 520 So. 2d 724 La. 1988
(citing Malone, Louisiana Workmen's Compensation, §§ 162, 192 (1st ed.)).
Savoy v. Cameron Parish School Bd. 524 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Reid v. Gamb, Inc., Guidry v. Sline, supra; Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill Lumber & Co.
Allison v. State Farm Fire & Cas. 520 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Kern v. Southport Mill, 174 La.
Reid v. Gamb, Inc. 509 So. 2d 995 La. 1987
Co., Kern v. Southport Mill Ltd., 174 La.
Dupre v. LA RETAILERS ASS'N SELF-INSURERS 509 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Palermo v. Reliance Ins. Co. 501 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: "The terms arising out of, and in the course of are not synonymous.
Mayeux v. Commercial Union Insurance Companies 492 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Guidry v. Sline Industrial Painters, Inc., supra
Bickham v. Orleans Parish School Board 488 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Kern v. Southport Mill, 174 La.
Harris v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 485 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Edwards, supra at 450 ; Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., Jackson v. Am.
Robinson v. F. STRAUSS & SONS, INC. 481 So. 2d 592 La. 1986
Sanders v. Chesson 467 So. 2d 1388 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., (La.
Verrette v. Town of Ponchatoula 464 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Co., Guidry, supra; Myers v. Louisiana Ry.
King v. Wilson Bros. Drilling Co., Inc. 441 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Reynolds v. Be-Neat Tank Cleaning Corp. 425 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Lisenbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., writ den.
Brumfield v. Patterson & Yeary Steel Co. 420 So. 2d 1134 La. 1982
Guidry v. Sline Indus. Painters, Inc. 418 So. 2d 626 La. 1982
Kern v. Southport Mill, 174 La.
Edwards v. Superior Coach Sales, Inc. 417 So. 2d 1289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Brumfield v. Patterson & Yeary Steel Co. 416 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Laughlin v. City of Crowley 411 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Jackson v. American Ins. Co. 404 So. 2d 218 La. 1981
Renfroe v. City of New Orleans 394 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Campbell v. Baker, Culpepper & Brunson 382 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Defendant contends that there was a "clear deviation" by claimant from her employment and that claimant "abandoned her post"
Augustine v. Washington Parish Police Jury 383 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
(S.C.1973); Carter v. Lanzetta [ 249 La.
Whitney v. US Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co. 373 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Whitney v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance 373 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Crane v. Patterson & Yeary Steel Co. 357 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Mitchell v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 341 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
In the recent case of Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Company, La., (1973), involving an assault on an employee by a gunman during work hours, Justice Summers stated his synopsis of applicable sections of Professor Malone's Treatise: "The terms arising out of and in the course of are not synonymous.
Turner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company 339 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Then, the trial court concluded, as we read the assigned reasons, that the accident occurred during the course of employment but did not arise out of it and was not compensable.