Cited by

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

205 citing documents.

Hebert v. Lake Charles American Press 427 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Antilley v. Sentry Ins. Co. 426 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Flood v. Hub Auto Parts, Inc. 425 So. 2d 941 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Martin v. Rollins Services Inc. 424 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Martin v. HB Zachry Co. 424 So. 2d 1002 La. 1982
Naquin v. Texaco, Inc. 423 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
SCHNEIDER AS TUTRIX OF SCHNEIDER v. Strahan 422 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Crump v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Roussel v. Colonial Sugars Company, supra
Daily v. Bechtel Power Corp. 420 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Harris v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. 420 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
(La.1974); Randle v. Commercial Union Ins.
Hammond v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York 419 So. 2d 829 La. 1982
Deville v. Port Pipe Terminal of Louisiana, Inc. 419 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Gremillion v. Babst Services, Inc. 418 So. 2d 637 La. 1982
this 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.
Guidry v. Sline Indus. Painters, Inc. 418 So. 2d 626 La. 1982
Hughes v. Webster Parish Police Jury 414 So. 2d 1353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Smith v. Borden, Inc. 413 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Beaty v. Thiokol Corp. 414 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Leleux, supra; Roussel, supra
Laughlin v. City of Crowley 411 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Breaux v. Allstate Insurance 411 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
756 (1937).” Further discussing the employee’s burden of proof in workmen’s compensation cases, stated: “Although procedural rules are construed liberally in favor of workmen’s *1231 compensation claimants, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is not relaxed.
Crochet v. American Tobacco Co. 407 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Gremillion v. Babst Services, Inc. 405 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
en of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his disabling condition was caused by the accident he suffered while in the employ of the defendant.” The court specifically noted in Lindsey v. H. A. Lott, Inc., supra, however: “In this case it is not disputed that the plaintiff had an accident while on the job, which he reported to his superiors.” the court also made the following statement at 422: “Although procedural rules are construed liberally in favor of workmen’s compensation claima
Page v. Prestressed Concrete Co. 399 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Rayfield ex rel. Rayfield v. City of New Orleans 398 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
ay be said that the vascular disease cases have been limited to employees who perform manual labor and recovery in such instances will not be permitted unless it is shown that the diseased organ gives way or its function is impaired while *1247 the laborer is discharging his usual and customarily laborious work.’ (emphasis supplied)” 1 (La.
Jones v. Alexander 399 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
This court has recently had occasion to reiterate the legal principles we find are applicable to the instant case: Discussing the employee's burden of proof in workmen's compensation cases, (La.
Harrison v. Morgan Portable Building Corp. 400 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
23:1031; Prim v. City of Shreveport, La., (1974); Ferguson v. HDE, Inc., (1972).” See also Lonzo, supra.
Randle v. Commercial Union Insurance 396 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
as follows: “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.
Ferrand v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 398 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
23:1031; Gorbach v. Prager, Inc.
Rivers v. MacCo 391 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Hall v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 390 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Discussing the employee's burden of proof in workmen's compensation cases, 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.
Simpson v. SS Kresge Co. 389 So. 2d 65 La. 1980
Bruney v. City of Lake Charles 386 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
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.
Istre v. Hudson Engineering Corp. 386 So. 2d 366 La. 1980
as follows: 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.
Lachney v. Baker Manufacturing Co. 377 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Prim v. City of Shreveport, La., (1974); Campbell v. Kansas City Southern Railroad Co., La.App., (1974).
Rowland v. Continental Oil Co., Inc. 374 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Prim v. City of Shreveport, La., (1974); Campbell v. Kansas City Southern Railroad Co., La.App., (1974).
Quine v. Ideal Cement Co. 351 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Prim v. City of Shreveport, La., (1974); (4th Cir., 1977).
Jacob v. Godchaux-Henderson Sugar Co., Inc. 350 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
See Roussel v. Colonial Sugars Company, supra; Fields v. Sperry Rand Corporation, supra; (La.
Mack v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 351 So. 2d 1306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Prim v. City of Shreveport, La., (1974).
Blacher v. Matlack, Inc. 349 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
The rule of law governing burden of proof in workmen’s
Meador v. International Paper Co. 348 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Fields v. Sperry Rand Corp. 343 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
and the other cases cited above.
Dunn v. Glen D. Lowe Co. 346 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Johnson v. Cajun Enterprises, supra .
Followed Chatelain v. American Can Co. 344 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Lucas v. Ins. Co. of North America 342 So. 2d 591 La. 1977
Prim v. City of Shreveport, La., (1974).
Richard v. Grand Marie Vegetable Producers Coop. 342 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Prim v. City of Shreveport, La., (1974).
Bracey v. Alexandria Transfer & Storage Co. 340 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
: “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.
Parks v. Insurance Co. of North America 340 So. 2d 276 La. 1976
23:1031; Gorbach v. Prager, Inc.
O'Donnell v. City of New Orleans 338 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Williams v. Sherwood Homes, Inc. 333 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Defendants appellants contend a
Kelly v. Murco Drilling Corp. 332 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
The trial court in disallowing compensation
Calais v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. 330 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
White v. Freeport Chemical Company 319 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
[2] (S.Ct.1974); Jordan v. Travelers Insurance Company, 257 La.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by