DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Turner v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 390 So. 2d 1330.

17 citing documents.

  • Johnson v. FID. & CAS. INS. CO. OF NY 618 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Wheat v. Murphy Construction Co. 516 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    3d Cir.1979) rev’d. on other grounds
  • Thomas v. Elder Pallet & Lumber Sales, Inc. 493 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    And, in fact, could be an `odd lot' as in Turner [v. American Mutual Insurance Co.], [(La.1980.)].
  • Duplechain v. Offshore Shipyard, Inc. 481 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Breland v. Louisiana Hospital Services, Inc. 468 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Ballard v. Younger Transportation, Inc. 461 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Heath v. Goldrus Drilling Co. 429 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    ODD-LOT DETERMINATION The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the odd-lot doctrine as the guiding concept in determining total disability in the cases of Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • White v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 416 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    To support its request for a remand, (La.
  • Irvine v. Sentry Ins. Co. 415 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    3d Cir. 1979), reversed on other grounds (La.App.
  • Droze v. McCarty Corp. 415 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    I The Louisiana Supreme Court in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., introduced the "odd-lot" doctrine of total disability into the jurisprudence interpreting La.R.S.
  • Schouest v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc. 411 So. 2d 1042 La. 1982
    To argue that he should be classified by this Court as an odd lot worker in a competitive labor market, plaintiff relies on Oster, supra
  • Alexander v. DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, ETC. 410 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    3rd Cir. 1979), reversed on other grounds
  • Poland v. American Mutual Insurance 409 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Amplifying further its mandate in Oster , stated: Under the odd-lot test as announced in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., supra, an injured employee is entitled to total, permanent disability compensation if he can perform no services other than those which are so limited in quality, dependability, or quantity that a reasonably stable market f
  • Cottonham v. Rockwood Ins. Co. 403 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    The Supreme Court subsequently adopted the odd lot doctrine as the guiding concept in determining permanent total disability in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Reliford v. Dobson Pulpwood Co. 401 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    See also Whitaker v. Church’s Fried Chicken, Inc., supra; Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., supra; Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., supra
  • Lattin v. Hica Corp. 395 So. 2d 690 La. 1981
    Co., upon remand the trial judge must determine whether the employer is successful in rebutting the plaintiff's prima facie showing of odd lot status, and if so, whether permanent, partial disability benefits should be awarded.
  • Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc. 393 So. 2d 1248 La. 1981
    Co., Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., Dusang v. Henry Beck Builders, Inc., supra.