DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jackson v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. Co., 142 So. 207.

13 citing documents.

  • Tarver v. Bailey 633 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Spain v. Travelers Insurance Company 332 So. 2d 827 La. 1976
  • Louisiana Civil Service League v. Forbes 246 So. 2d 800 La. 1971
  • Sims v. Nat. Casualty Co. 43 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., , the Court had a similar question before it but stated that it was unnecessary to consider this vexing though interesting question for reasons therein given.
  • Sawyer v. Liberty Industrial Life Ins. 171 So. 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    the Orleans Court of Appeal held, under Act No. 227 of 1916, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Whitmeyer v. Liberty Industrial Life Ins.
  • Neck v. Reliance Industrial Life Ins. Co. 159 So. 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    App.) , it was held that: ‘Statute providing statement relied on by insurer as defense must be indorsed on or attached to policy held applicable to industrial life .insurers (Act No. 227 of 1916, § 2, amending and re-enacting Act No. 52 of 1906; Act No. 65 of 1908, § 7).’ “And again, on same subject, in McBride v. Acme Indu
  • Wilkins v. Universal Life Ins. Co. 159 So. 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    Co., , we said: “We have been unable to find that, since the enactment of Act No. 66 of 1906, any court has discussed the effect of section 7 of that act on future legislation; but we do find that, in a very large number of cases, more than twenty-five, in fact, the later statutes to which we have referred have been a
  • Winders v. Co-Operative Burial Ass'n 157 So. 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    App.) , it was held that: “Statute providing statement relied on by insurer as defense must be indorsed on or attached to policy held applicable to industrial life insurers (Act No. 227 of 1916, § 2, amending and re-enacting Act No. 52 of 1906; Act No. 65 of 1906, § 7).” And again, on same subject, in McBride v. Acme Indust
  • Succession of Watson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. 156 So. 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    Co., , we had likewise said: “We, therefore, are of the opinion that the various general enactments to which we have referred were intended by their framers to be .applicable to industrial life insurance companies and that, since such was the intention of those who enacted them, any intention of members of earlier Leg
  • McBride v. Acme Industrial Life Ins. Soc. 154 So. 741 La. 1934
  • McBride v. Acme Industrial Life Ins. Soc. 150 So. 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    App.) , and Jones v. International Order of Knights, etc. (La.
  • Jones v. International Order of Twelve of Knights & Daughters of Tabor for the Grand Temple & Tabernacle … 148 So. 73 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1933
    Co., , we considered the effect of future legislation on Act No. 65 of 1906, under which industrial life insurance companies are created and governed and in which section 7 provides: “ ⅜ ⅜ * That no law, hereafter passed, shall be held or deemed to refer to the business of industrial life insurance unless the same is
  • Taylor v. Unity Industrial Ins. Co. 147 So. 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    App.) ; Whitmeyer v. Liberty Ind.