Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ricks v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co., 189 So. 466.

13 citing documents.

Carter v. Connick 623 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
The question of the constitutionality of a statute could not be considered on appeal, where it had not been passed on by the trial court according to Ricks v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co., (La.App.
City of Baton Rouge v. Noble 535 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Steven v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 509 So.2d at 722 ; Ricks v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co., (La.App.
Steven v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 509 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Ricks v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co., (La.App.
Martin v. Great American Indemnity Co. 75 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Ricks v. Crowell [& Spencer Lumber Co., La.App.], Brown v. Furr [La.App.], ; Walls v. Solvay [Process Co., La.App.], ; Moffett v. Mansfield Hardwood [Lumber] Co., [La.App.], .
Gibbs v. Pizzolato 67 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Ricks v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co., La.App., ; Ogea v. W. Horace Williams Co., La.App., 165 So.
O'Rourke v. O'Rourke 52 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
739 ; Ricks v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co., La.App., ; Southern Amusement Co. v. City of Jennings, 180 La.
City of New Orleans v. Grosch 49 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1950
739 ; Ricks v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co., La.App., ; Southern Amusement Co. v. City of Jennings, 180 La.
Moffett v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. 30 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
App., , the Court of Appeal of the First Circuit, despite testimony to the effect that the employees in wood operations of the defendant in that case usually worked not more than three or four days per week, allowed recovery on the basis of six days per week.
Walls v. Solvay Process Co. 21 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
App., ; Ogea v. W. Horace Williams Co., La.
Brown v. Furr 19 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
The interpretation of the provisions of the statute as to what constitutes a weekly wage has been given in a number of instances, particularly in the case of Ricks v. Crowell Spencer Lumber Co., La.App., , in which it was held that the weekly wage of an employee for compensation purposes should be computed on the basis of a six-day working week, despite the fact that the employee may normally have worked a less number of days per week.
Haskett v. City of Shreveport 17 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
The case of Ricks v. Crowell Spencer Lumber Co., La.App., , is authority for computing the weekly wage of an employee, for compensation purposes, on the basis of a six-day working week, despite the fact that the employee may normally have worked a less number of days per week.
Abbott v. Swift Co. 6 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
745 and Ricks v. Crowell Spencer Lumber Co., Inc., La.App., , where we had a rather similar question under consideration and discussed the principles to be applied in arriving at the weekly wage.
Gay v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. 191 So. 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
It seems that to support the demand for an amendment to the judgment in that respect, counsel for plaintiff rely particularly on a recent decision of this court in tire case of Ricks v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Company, Inc., La.App., , in which they say that the court was presented with the identical situation found here.