DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sumrall v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Co., 1 So. 2d 430.

18 citing documents.

  • Guilbeaux v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company 134 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    Plaintiff relies on several cases where compensation was granted solely upon the testimony of claimant, among those cases being that of Sumrall v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., La.App., , in which the writer was the organ of the Court.
  • Holmes v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 91 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Sumrall v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., La.App., ; McCray v. Yarbrough, La.App., ; Verbois v. Standard Accident Co., La.App., ; Dolhonde v. Gullett Gin Co., La.App., ; Cascio v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, La.App., ; O’Connor v. American Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., ; Johnson v. Brown Paper Mil
  • Zito v. Standard Accident Insurance Co. 76 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    Sumrall v. E. I. Du Pont De NeMours & Co., La.App., ; McCray v. Yarbrough, La.App., ; Verbois v. Standard Accident Co., La.App., ; Dolhonde v. Gullett Gin Co., La.App., ; Cascio v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, La.App., ; O'Connor v. American Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., ; Johnson v. Brown Paper Mil
  • Strother v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. 63 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    Sumrall v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., La.App., ; , supra; De Kerlegand v. Car & General Ins.
  • Weber v. Kieckhefer Container Co. 45 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    783 ; Sumrall v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., La.App., ; McKenzie v. Standard Motor Car Co. et al., La.App., ; Henry v. Higgins Industries, Inc., La.App., .
  • Boling v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation 42 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., ; Phillips v. Wohlfeld, La.
  • Boulanger v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 31 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    App., ; McKenzie v. Standard Motor Car Co. et al., La.
  • De Kerlegand v. Car General Ins. Corporation 30 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    App., ; McKenzie v. Standard Motor Car Co. et al., La.
  • Wherland v. Crowell Long Leaf Lumber Co. 26 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    App., , plaintiff should not be barred from recovery simply because he was unable to produce an eyewitness to the accident, when his explanation of it is otherwise, corroborated by surrounding circumstances such as we find in the record.
  • Robinson v. Frost Hardwood Floors 25 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    783 ; Sumrall v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours Co., La-App., ; Phillips v. Wholfeld, La.
  • Sibley v. Solvay Process Co. 23 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    With reference to the decision of the question as to whether the accident occurred, , , wherein it was held that the testimony of the plaintiff alone would be accepted to prove the occurrence of an accident, providing the attendant circumstances afford reasonable corroboration of the plaintiff's testimony, and that he heartily agrees to the
  • Ranatza v. Higgins Industries, Inc. 23 So. 2d 45 La. 1945
    783 ; Sumrall v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., La.App., ; Phillips v. Wohlfeld, La.App., ; Thompson v. Leach & McClain, ; McKenzie v. Standard Motor Co., La.App., .
  • Ranatza v. Higgins Industries 18 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    Du Pont de Nemours Co., La.App., ; Anderson v. May, La.App., 195 So.
  • McKenzie v. Standard Motor Car Co. 15 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    DuPont De Nemours Co., La.App., ; McQueen v. Union Indemnity Co., 18 La.App.
  • Smith v. Travelers Ins. Co. 13 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    Du Pont De Nemours Co., La.App., , where the injured employees although earning money *Page 84 on other jobs after their accidents, were permitted to recover compensation, because their injuries prevented them from obtaining employment in the same kind and character of work which they had been accustomed to perform.
  • Thompson v. Leach McClain 11 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    Du Pont De Nemours Co., La.App., , 432, we held "Of course, the mere fact that plaintiff was able to earn, and did earn, a considerable income in another line of business, after his injury, does not bar him from the recovery of compensation if he was disabled from doing the kind of work which he was doing when he was injured."
  • Phillips v. Wohlfeld 10 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    holds that the mere fact that plaintiff, a carpenter, was able to earn and did earn, after his injury, a considerable income as a contractor and superintendent, does not bar him from the recovery of compensation if he was disabled from doing the kind of work he was doing when injured, citing McQueen v. Union Indemni
  • Casanova v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. 6 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    Du Pont De Nemours Co., La.App., , in which the writer was the organ of the Court.