Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Allor v. Belden Corp., 393 So. 2d 1233.

112 citing documents.

  • Green v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 413 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Herrin v. Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. 414 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    3rd Cir. 1980), reversed in part on other grounds
  • Laughlin v. City of Crowley 411 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to benefit from the following presumption, on page 1236: "On the specific issue of the causal connection between the accident and the disability, the claimant is entitled to the benefit of a presumption in certain cases.
  • Wool v. Parish of Jefferson 411 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    Nevertheless, under the recent decision of the State Supreme Court, i.e., Dusang v. Beck Builders, Inc., Schouest v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., (1981), this does not mean plaintiff is precluded from receiving compensation benefits.
  • Lofton v. Louisiana Pac. Corp. 410 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Allor v. Belden Corp. 410 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    We order that an additional $500.00 in attorney’s fees be assessed against the defendant to cover the expenses incurred in prosecuting this appeal.”
  • Alexander v. DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, ETC. 410 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Hammond v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York 407 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    as follows: "On the specific issue of the causal connection between the accident and the disability, the claimant is entitled to the benefit of a presumption in certain cases.
  • Spillers v. Cities Service Co. 406 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Berry v. Livingston Roofing Co. 403 So. 2d 1247 La. 1981
  • 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
  • Landry v. Benson and Gold Chevrolet 398 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Appellant argues that, on the issue of causation, a worker is entitled to the benefit of a presumption in cases such as this.