DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York, 7 So. 2d 636.

22 citing documents.

  • Edwards v. Stafford 153 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    App., ; and Prater v. Sun Indemnity Company of New York, La.
  • Allen v. Travelers Insurance Co. 124 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    177 and Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York, La.App., (involving the right of an employee to compensation for injury received while being transported to or from work on a vehicle furnished by his employer) have been resolved by the Supreme Court of this state in Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., 219 La.
  • McMorris v. Home Indemnity Insurance Company 107 So. 2d 645 La. 1958
    384 (writs refused); Franz v. Sun Indemnity Company of New York, La.App., ; and Prater v. Sun Indemnity Company of New York, La.App., .
  • McMorris v. Home Indemnity Co. 94 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    2d 895 ; Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of N. Y., La.App., ; Benjamin v. Standard Accident Ins.
  • Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. 92 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    The fact remains that the deceased met his death while actually engaged in performing duties, whether main or incidental, called for by his employment.” *733 The Byas rule has been applied in a number of cases, among which are Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York, La.App., ; Labostrie v. Weber, 15 La.App.
  • Carpenter v. Madden 90 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    See also Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York, La.App., -639 , and the cases therein cited; Kline v. Dawson Lumber Co., La., .
  • Kline v. Dawson 89 So. 2d 385 La. 1956
    428 ; Franz v. Sun Indemnity Company of New York, La.App., and Fields v. General Casualty Company of America, 216 La.
  • Freeman v. Clark 88 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    The following decisions are authoritative and informative upon the announced principle: Franz v. Sun Indemnity Company of New York, La.App.1942, and Richardson v. Crescent Forwarding & Transportation Company, Ltd., 1931, 17 La.App.
  • Rogers v. Weldon 85 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Benjamin v. Standard Acc.
  • Kline v. Dawson 84 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    See Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York, La.App., .
  • Meyers v. Southwest Region Conference Ass'n of Seventh Day Adventists 79 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    We discussed this at length in Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York, La.App., , as follows: “ * * * It is well settled that it is not the work performed by the particular employee which determines whether the employer is engaged in an occupation contemplated by the statute.
  • Landry v. Fuselier 78 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    This question likewise appears to have been well settled in the jurisprudence of this state in the following cases: Smith v. Crossett Lumber Company, La.App., ; Franz v. Sun Indemnity Company, La.App., ; Benjamin v. Standard Accident Insurance Company, 152 La.
  • Smith v. Crossett Lumber Co. 72 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    For instance, -639 , through Judge Janvier as the organ of the court, stated: "If by the issuance of a policy in which it agreed to indemnify the employer corporation against loss due to liability for compensation and by the acceptance of a premium therefor the insurer estopped itself to contend that the employer, because of th
  • Harrington v. Franklin's Stores Corp. of New Iberia 55 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    Scott v. Dalton Co., La.App., ; Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York, La.App., ; Richardson v. American Employers Insurance Co., La.App., .
  • Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co. 54 So. 2d 121 La. 1951
    177 ; , while the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit takes the view that it does not.
  • Fields v. General Casualty Co. of America 45 So. 2d 85 La. 1950
    366 ; Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co., La.App., and Benjamin v. Standard Acc.
  • Blackburn v. Chenet 42 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., , and Hecker v. Betz, La.
  • Prater v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York 38 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
  • Fields v. General Casualty Co. of America 36 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    This argument has been answered by our Courts and specifically so by the Orleans Court of Appeal in the *Page 846 case of Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co., 1942, , 638, wherein the Court said: "If by the issuance of a policy in which it agreed to indemnify the employer corporation against loss due to liability for compensation and by the acceptance of a premium therefor the insurer estopped itself to contend that the employer, because of the nature of its business, could not b
  • Reagor v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co. 33 So. 2d 521 La. 1948
    1 For an able and comprehensive review and discussion of the jurisprudence on this subject, see opinion by JANVIER, J., in Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York, La.App., .
  • Reagor v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co. 28 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    App.Orl.App., , has been cited as a case holding that where the operation of automobiles and other motor driven vehicles is a necessary part of the business of the employer the compensation statute applies and the employer is liable.
  • Bruns v. Bemis Bros. Bag Co. 8 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    6 ; Franz v. Sun Indemnity Company of New York, La.App., , decided April 13, 1942.