Vanacor v. Amant
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 21, 1965 175 So. 2d 924
Vanacor v. Amant, 379 So. 2d 769 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979).
Cited by
- Tumblin v. Gratech Corp. 448 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
- Haywood v. Salter 421 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Foster v. Hampton 352 So. 2d 197
- Superdome Services, Inc. v. State 381 So. 2d 789
Opinion text
ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM. Notwithstanding Foster v. Hampton, La.1977, 352 So.2d 197 , and Foster v. Hampton, La.1980, 381 So.2d 789 , ruling that the State is the employer of a deputy sheriff, the State has provided by law for deputy sheriffs to be paid their salaries by the respective sheriffs for whom they are deputies. It is the sheriff’s obligation to pay to the deputies that he appoints their salaries, and the sheriff is in that sense the “employer” who is obliged by La.R.S. 23:631 to pay those salaries promptly upon termination of employment and is subject to the penalty and attorney fee provisions of the statute for his breach of that obligation. Rehearing refused.