Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Emmco Ins. Co. v. Ocean Accident & Guaranty Corp., 55 So. 2d 647.

16 citing documents.

Bolton v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 245 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Harrington v. Franklin’s Stores Corporation of New Iberia
Fontenot v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 232 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
In Harrington v. Franklin’s Stores Corp. of New Iberia, (La.App.
Honeycutt v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 146 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
940 , ; Harrington v. Franklin’s Stores Corporation of New Iberia (La.App., 1 Cir., 1951), .
Leleau v. Jacomine 144 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Wells v. Morgan & Lindsey (La.App., 1st Circuit) ; Lafleur v. Johnson (La.App., 1st Circuit) ; Coleman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (La.App., 2d Circuit) ; Harrington v. Franklin’s Stores Corporation (La.App., 1st Circuit) .
Boggs v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company 125 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
1 Cir., 1950, , in which the plaintiff was employed as a maid and her principal duties consisted of general cleaning of the store, but her duties also included the use of an electrically powered steam iron to press merchandise for display in the window and the use of an electrically powered vacuum cleaner.
Allen v. Travelers Insurance Co. 124 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Wells v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App., ; Harrington v. Franklin’s Stores, La.App., ; Talbot v. Trinity Universal Ins.
Prevost v. Felix's Inc. 121 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
sed in the modern home.” In Rauk v. Clarke, supra [ ] it was shown that the defendant was engaged “in operating a rather small restaurant in the City of Baton Rouge, the equipment of which consisted of a gas stove, one or more refrigerators, a food freezer, a steam table, to keep food warm, ice cream cooler and a coffee urn.” *95 In Harrington v. Franklin’s Stores Corp. of New Iberia, , which did not involve kitchen appliances, the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit held that the plaintiff wa
Le Balnc v. Antional Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 118 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
1 Cir., ; Wells v. Morgan & Lindsey, La.App.
Hymel v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 113 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Brown v. Remington-Rand, Inc., La.App., ; Harrington v. Franklin’s Stores Corp. of New Iberia, La.App., ; McAllister v. Peoples Homestead & Savings Ass’n, La.App., 171 So.
Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. 102 So. 2d 461 La. 1958
And in only one of them was the writ of certiorari applied for, it being Harrington v. Franklin’s Stores Corporation of New Iberia, La.App., .
Talbot v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company 99 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
758 ; Harrington v. Franklin Stores [La.App.], ; and Brown v. Toler, [La.App.], .
Fontenot v. Myers 93 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
A , wherein after remarking that "the nature of the employer's business and not the particular work done by the employee is the determinative factor" in deciding whether a given employment is covered by the compensation act, we summarized the Byas case as holding as to a "partially hazardous employment" that "where
Rauk v. Clarke 91 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
We feel that this case is governed by our holding in the case of Harrington v. Franklin’s Stores Corporation of New Iberia, La.App., , and the authorities therein cited, wherein we held in part as follows: “In Claiborne v. Smith, La.App., , it was held that a cook in the kitchen department of a cafeteria who came in contact with an electric refrigerator was not engaged in a hazardous employment, and the Court doubted ‘very muc
Hammer v. Lazarone 87 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
App., ; McAllister v. Peoples Homestead & Savings Ass’n, La.App., 171 So.
Coleman v. Sears, Roebuck & Company 83 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
940 , ; Harrington v. Franklin's Stores Corp. of New Iberia, La.App., .
Brown v. Remington Rand, Inc. 81 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
130 ; Harrington v. Franklin Stores, La.App., .