DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., 390 So. 2d 1318.

112 citing documents.

  • Wellmeyer v. Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio 663 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    2 In Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., the Supreme Court defined the “odd lot” doctrine: In order to determine whether the plaintiff fits within this category of odd-lot workers, he must show that because of his physical impairment, mental capacity, education, training, age, availability of employment in his area, and any other relevant factor
  • Thomas v. Union Tank Co. 647 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Johnson v. FID. & CAS. INS. CO. OF NY 618 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    2d Cir.1983), writ denied, Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Borne v. Tompkins-Beckwith, Inc. 595 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Aromy v. Cox Cable of Jefferson Parish, Inc. 570 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    23:1221(2) (Supp.1975).” Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Hill v. LJ Earnest, Inc. 568 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    1983); Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., DeGruy v. Pala, Inc., supra ; Jackson v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Company, supra ; (La.App.
  • Durbin v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 558 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    (Emphasis added; citations omitted) See also Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Bowman v. F. Christiana and Co., Inc. 553 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Jackson v. Universal Match Corp. 535 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    The odd-lot doctrine, set forth in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., provides that a claimant is entitled to a finding of total and permanent disability when he establishes a prima facie case that, because of his physical impairment, mental capacity, education, training, age, availability of employment in his area, and any other relevant factor, he cannot perform the substan
  • Houston v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. 531 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    See Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Breaux v. Travelers Ins. Co. 526 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    In the landmark case of Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court enunciated this state's understanding of the "odd-lot" doctrine stating: "...
  • Holiday v. Borden Chemical 524 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., citing Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Merritt v. Crown Zellerbach 525 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Marcotte v. Gulf Builders, Inc. 525 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    In Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court quoted Johnson, Work of the La.
  • Explained Bernard v. WOODROW WILSON CONST. CO., INC. 526 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Jackson v. Georgia Cas. and Sur. Co. 513 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Brunson v. State 510 So. 2d 1349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    See Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Loud v. Dixie Metal Co. 506 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    Substantial pain cases may also be analyzed within the framework of the odd lot doctrine which was adopted by the court in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Notto v. MORTON-NORWICH PROD. INC. 498 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    In its written reasons for judgment, the trial court stated: "The medical evidence is clear that plaintiff is left permanently disabled, and it is the finding of this court that the disability is partial and that plaintiff has not met his burden of proving that he falls into the `odd lot' category as that term is enunciated in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., ."
  • Young v. Aetna Life & Casualty Ins. Co. 497 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    See Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Harris v. West Jefferson Hospital 494 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    The case cited by the plaintiff and followed by the trial court, Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., sets out the analysis and application of the statutory law which governs in this case.
  • Layssard v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. 490 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    In Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., the Supreme Court adopted the “odd-lot” doctrine of permanent total disability.
  • Richard v. A-1 Industries, Inc. 489 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    He claimed further that his other medical problems (e.g., arthritis in the spine and a compression fracture of his thoracic spine), combined with the problems resulting from the 1982 accident, had the cumulative effect of making him totally and permanently disabled, under the odd-lot doctrine enunciated in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Thompkins v. Sewell Plastics, Inc. 487 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Jolibois v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. 486 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    (citations omitted) Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., 1324 (La.1980); (La.App.
  • Dement v. International Paper Co. 479 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    In Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., , at page 1322 (La.1980), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the “odd lot” doctrine is intended to lessen the impact of the harsh language of the 1975 amendment to LSA-R.S.
  • Duplechain v. Offshore Shipyard, Inc. 481 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Zachary Co., 424 So.2d, 1002 , the Supreme Court set forth the “odd-lot-working in pain” doctrine: “ we adopted the so-called “odd-lot” doctrine which provides that the claimant is entitled to a total and permanent disability when he establishes a prima facie case that, because of the physical impairment and other factors such as mental capacity, education, and training, he can perform no services other th
  • Wheat v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corp. 479 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Scott v. Terrebonne Lumber Co. 479 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Clement v. Scaffolding Rental & Erection Services, Inc. 480 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., (La.App.
  • Sharbono v. H & S CONST. CO. 478 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    In Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., , at page 1322 (La.1980), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the "odd lot" doctrine is intended to lessen the impact of the harsh language of the 1975 amendment to R.S.
  • Walton v. Normandy Village Homes Ass'n, Inc. 475 So. 2d 320 La. 1985
    See Oster v. Wetzell Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Rodney v. Crown Zellerbach Corp. 470 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Lanus v. Gulf Wandes Corp. 470 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Thornhill v. Luke Construction Co. 468 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Molina v. Browning Ferris Industries Chemical Service, Inc. 468 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    What is disputed is whether this disability, along with his age, mental capacity, education, training, availability of employment in his area, and other relevant factors, render him unable to compete for jobs and place him within the “odd lot” category as enunciated in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Brown v. Mount Carmel Academy of New Orleans, Inc. 468 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    ...” *647 In Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted the above statutory language according to the “odd lot” doctrine.
  • LaPrarie v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 463 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Lemoine v. Brice Building Co. 465 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Ballard v. Younger Transportation, Inc. 461 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., Shatoska v. International Grain Transfer, Inc., (La.App.
  • Shatoska v. International Grain Transfer, Inc. 465 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Vernon v. Aetna Life and Cas.
  • Cupit v. Amax Nickel, Inc. 454 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The “odd lot” doctrine was adopted in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., and provides that a claimant is entitled to total and permanent disability if he establishes that because of his physical impairment and other factors — mental capacity, training, education — he can perform no service other than those so limited in quality or dependability that a reasonably stable market doe
  • Thibodeaux v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. 454 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Harris v. Board of Supervisors 451 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The Supreme Court in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., enunciated the burden of proof that a claimant must sustain in order to be classified in the “odd lot” category: “[H]e must show that because of his physical impairment, mental capacity, education, training, age, availability of employment in his area, and any other relevant factor, that he ‘cannot perform t
  • Procell v. Employers Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin 450 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Bridgewater v. Crown Zellerbach 449 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Woodard v. Gregory and Cook, Inc. 442 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Hayes v. Hammett Co. 442 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    “This court further finds that plaintiff is totally disabled under the ‘odd-lot’ doctrine as adopted in Oster v. Wet-zel Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Thornell v. Payne & Keller, Inc. 442 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Vernon v. Aetna Life and Cas. Ins. Co. 442 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Since the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., cases involving substantial pain are analyzed within the framework of the "odd-lot" doctrine.