Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Prim v. City of Shreveport, 297 So. 2d 421.

205 citing documents.

Hebert v. Harbert International, Inc. 527 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Provost v. Transportation Ins. Co. 524 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Prim vs. City of Shreveport, Stuckey vs. Home *802 Insurance Co., (La.App.
Williams v. Page 519 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Hale v. Pinecrest State School 505 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Dugas v. Fontenot Motors, Inc. 510 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Narcisse v. Employers Ins. of Wausau 510 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Prim vs. City of Shreveport, Stuckey vs. Home Insurance Co., (La.App.
Reid v. Gamb, Inc. 509 So. 2d 995 La. 1987
Co., Roussel v. Colonial *997 Sugars, and, generally, Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law (1985) Vol.
Foreman v. Barras Lighting Electric Co. 509 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Alexander v. LaGrange 509 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Lewis v. Alloy Casting of Louisiana, Inc., (La.App.
Williams v. General Electric Co. 503 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
stated: “Although procedural rules are construed liberally in favor of workmen’s compensation claimants, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is not relaxed.
Harris v. Halliburton Co. 501 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Bistes v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. 499 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Luneau v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Ins. Co. 493 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Sims v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 491 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Prim, v. City of Shreveport
Hollars v. EMES Management Corp. 490 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Wall v. Sisters of Charity of Incarnate Word 488 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Henry v. Simmons Family Investments, Inc. 486 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Boren v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. 486 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Stone v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. 484 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Prim vs. City of Shreveport, Calais vs. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., (3rd Cir.1976).
Fontenot v. G.L. Manuel Conoco, Co. 482 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Honore v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. 482 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Nix v. City of Houma 479 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Guidry v. Sline Industrial Painters, Inc., Pennington v. Reading & Bates Construction Co., (La.App.
Clakeley v. Ochsner Foundation Hosp. 478 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
The testimony as a whole must show that more probable than not a work connected accident occurred, and that it had a causal relationship to claimant's disability
Walton v. Normandy Village Homes Ass'n, Inc. 475 So. 2d 320 La. 1985
Lewis v. Alloy Casting of La., Inc. 465 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Fourroux v. North-West Ins. Co. 462 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Prim vs. City of Shreveport, Calais vs. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., (3rd Cir. 1976) .
James v. Celotex Corp. 461 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Thomas v. Jacobs 459 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Bamburg v. Riley-Beaird, Inc., (La.App.
Morgan v. General Motors Corp. 459 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
the supreme court stated: “Although procedural rules are construed liberally in favor of workmen’s compensation claimants, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is not relaxed.
Roshto v. Wausau Ins. Companies 457 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
1st Cir.1977) which states the following rule: `
Cooper v. Ami, Inc. 454 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Dupuy v. State, Office of Risk Management 450 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Field v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.App.
Granger v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corp. 448 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Randle v. Commercial Union Ins.
Young v. Hercules, Inc. 449 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Thompson v. Alamo Glass Co. 446 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
3rd Cir.1983), writ denied
Bosley v. Payne & Keller of Louisiana, Inc. 449 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
the Supreme Court stated: “Although procedural rules are construed liberally in favor of workmen’s compensation claimants, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is not relaxed.
Dunckelman v. T. Baker Smith & Sons 447 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Frix v. Supreme Catering Service & Aetna Insurance Co. 444 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Holmes v. Central Louisiana State Hospital 442 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
King v. Wilson Bros. Drilling Co., Inc. 441 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Nealy v. Great American Transportation Corp. 438 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Carter v. PK Smith Chevrolet-Olds, Inc. 438 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Pennington v. Reading & Bates Construction Co. 432 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Beauclair v. Rockwood Insurance 430 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Stuckey v. Home Ins. Co. 433 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Celestin v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 430 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Lonzo v. Town of Marksville 430 So. 2d 1088 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Gardner v. Brown 428 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
The applicable legal principles governing the burden of proof necessary to establish a as follows: [2-4] Although procedural rules are construed liberally in favor of workmen’s compensation claimants, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is not relaxed.
Field v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 427 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Cook v. Marshall Bros. Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. 427 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Leleux v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Insurance Company, supra; (La.App.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by