DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lala v. American Sugar Refining Co., 38 So. 2d 415.

25 citing documents.

  • Bateman v. Power Rig Rental Tool Co. 453 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Faucheux v. Hooker Chemical Corp. 440 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Muse v. Sentry Insurance Company 269 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
  • Murphy v. Employers Mutual Insurance Co. of Warsaw 248 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Duncan v. Carlo Ditta, Inc. 170 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    *873 it was stated by this Court: “There is no doubt in our minds that nervousness, neurosis, or emotional disturbances, superinduced by injuries suffered by a workman, can be just as devastating to the ability to return to work as are physical or anatomical injuries, and are equally as compensable under the
  • Legendre v. J. Ray McDermott & Co. 165 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    These are much the same symptoms as mentioned in the cases of Lala v. American Sugar Refining Co., La.App., , and Peavy v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., La.App., , and include nightmares, nervousness and headaches, loss of sexual ability, insomnia, diminished appetite, loss of weight and others.
  • Glidden v. Alexandria Concrete Co. 132 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Co., La.App., , writs denied) ; or in a higher position in another shop, (McKenzie v. Standard Motor Car Co., La.App., , writs refused) ; or has obtained a job in a clerical capacity at higher wages (Lala v. American Sugar Refining Co., La.App., , writs *520 denied); is of no moment and a common laborer, totally and permanently disabled, earning a higher wage performing different work will not be deprived of his right to recover compensation from the employer he was working for at the time of hi
  • Guidry v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company 130 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    See Lala v. American Sugar Refining Co., La.App., .
  • Pohl v. American Bridge Division US Steel Corp. 109 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    [3] Lala v. American Sugar Refining Company, La.App.1949, ; see also, Miller v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App.1958, ; Singleton v. W. L. Richardson & Son, Inc., La.App.1957, ; Dupre v. Wyble, La.App.1956, .
  • Mouton v. Marquette Casualty Co. 109 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    261 , (1943); Vega v. Higgins Industries, Inc., Ladner v. Higgins, Inc., Mamon v. Farnsworth & Chambers Construction Co., Inc., Sharp v. Hardware Dealers Mutu
  • Parker v. General Earthwork Service 103 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    Neurosis of the conversion type comparable to plaintiff’s , wherein we held: “There is no doubt in our minds that nervousness, neurosis, or emotional disturbances, superinduced by injuries suffered by a workman, can be just as devastating to the ability to return to work as are physical or anatomical injuries, and are equally as compensable under the statute.” A similar
  • Miller v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 99 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
    Orleans, 1949, writs denied, ; Peavy v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., La.App.
  • Singleton v. W. L. Richardson & Son, Inc. 95 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Mamon v. Farnsworth & Chambers Construction Co. 86 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    241 ; Peavy v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., La.App., ; Lala v. American Sugar Refining Co., La.App., ; Vega v. Higgins Industries, Inc., La.App., ; Clifton v. Glassell-Taylor Co., La.App., ; Porter v. W. Horace Williams Co., La.App., ; McCastle v. Architectural Stone Co., La.
  • Tate v. Gullett Gin Company & Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. 86 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    App. 1 Cir., ; Ladner v. Higgins, La.App., ; Peavy v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Company, La.App., ; Lala v. American Sugar Refining Company, La.App., ; Vega v. Higgins Industries, La.
  • Dupre v. Wyble 85 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    261 , ; Ladner v. Higgins, La.App., ; Peavy v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Company, La.App., ; Lala v. American Sugar Refining Company, La.App., ; Vega v. Higgins Industries, Inc., La.App., ; Porter v. W. Horace Williams Co., La.App., ; Vaughn v. Solvay Process Co., La.App.
  • Hicks v. Royal Indemnity Co. 80 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    in which we said: “There is no doubt in our minds that nervousness, neurosis, or emotional disturbances, superinduced by injuries suffered by a workman, can be just as devastating to the ability to return to work as are physical or anatomical injuries, and are equally as compen-sable under the statute.” Shortly
  • Turner v. W. Horace Williams Co. 80 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    In support of this contention, counsel relies upon the rationale expressed in Lala v. American Sugar Refining Co., La.App.1949, (1949) and Ladner v. Higgins, Inc., La.App.1954, *163 .
  • Phelps v. Royal Indemnity Company 77 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    In Lala v. American Sugar Refining Co., La.App., , in which writs were denied by the Supreme Court, we considered a case in which the employee had recovered from the physical injuries but contended that he was permanently, totally disabled because of the "nervousness, neurosis, or emotional disturbances" which had been "superinduced" by the injuries.
  • Ladner v. Higgins, Inc. 71 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    we said: "There is no doubt in our minds that nervousness, neurosis, or emotional disturbances superinduced by injuries suffered by a workman, can be just as devastating to the ability to return to work as are physical or anatomical injuries, and are equally as compensable under the statute."
  • Roberts v. MS Carroll Co. 68 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
    App., ; Pav v. Ethyl Corp., La.
  • Saltzman v. Lone Star Cement Corp. 55 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    In Lala v. American Sugar Refining Co., La.App., , plaintiff was employed as a sugar drier operating a centrifugal machine in a sugar refinery.
  • Newsom v. Caldwell & McCann 51 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    6 ; Lee v. International Paper Co., La.App., ; Brown v. Furr, La.App., ; Lala v. American Sugar Refining Co., La.App., .
  • Peavy v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. 40 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., , are very much in point.
  • Jones v. Atlantic Gulf Stevedores 38 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    This is substantially in accord with an opinion rendered by this Court on January 24, 1949, , where we said: "Courts ofttimes have been guided by lay testimony where the medical experts expressed conflicting opinions regarding a plaintiff's capability to work, and we believe in this particular case that the testimony of the lay witnesses is very enlightening and should be given consideration, along with all