Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Piske v. Brooklyn Cooperage Co., 78 So. 734.

29 citing documents.

Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill and Lumber Company 278 So. 2d 5 La. 1973
Norred v. Travelers Insurance Company 236 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
Davis v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. 159 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Coleman v. Rodorho Furniture Co. 116 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Chance v. American Mutual Liability Insurance 92 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
McCary v. Pugh 70 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1954
Liner v. Travelers Ins. Co. 41 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Moss v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. 35 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1948
Fields v. Brown Paper Mill Co. 28 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Brown v. R.P. Farnsworth Co. 17 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
Craig v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co. 168 So. 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
706, 708 , our brothers of the First Circuit followed the above-quoted rule, using the following language: ‘It is too well established to require .the citation of authorities to the effect that a compensation suit presents no exception to the general rule that, in order to recover, a plaintiff must prove his case to a legal certainty.’ “ , 78 So.
Franklin v. J. P. Floria & Co. 158 So. 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Doby v. Canulette Shipbuilding Co. 156 So. 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Taylor v. Southern Carbon Co. 153 So. 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Jackson v. Travelers' Ins. Co. 151 So. 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Schultz v. L. Mundet & Son, Inc. 146 So. 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Howerton v. McCrary 144 So. 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Savin v. T. Smith & Sons, Inc. 143 So. 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
706, 708 , our brothers of the First Circuit followed the above-quoted rule, using the following language: “It is too well established to require the citation of authorities to the effect that a compensation suit presents no exception to the general rule that, in order to recover, a plaintiff must prove his case to a legal certainty.” , 78 So.
Toney v. Geo. A. Fuller Co. 143 So. 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Tate v. George A. Fuller Co. 143 So. 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Daigle v. Moody 140 So. 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
456 , , and followed without variation by the courts of this state ever since, is that, in order to justify recovery by plaintiff in a suit under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act No. 20 of T914, and amendments thereto), the plaintiff • must prove that the accident occurred while the employee was performing services arisi
Boudreaux v. Rossen 139 So. 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Abelleira v. Johnson Iron Works Co. 137 So. 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
210 , decided October 19, 1931; , 78 So.
Womack v. Highway Const. Co. 137 So. 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Brent v. Union Indemnity Co. 135 So. 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Nance v. United Fruit Co. 131 So. 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
bus reads as follows: “The widow cannot recover under the Workmen’s Compensation Act No. 20 of 1914 and amendments where employee was killed three hundred and seventy-three feet from the premises of his employer while he was on a personal errand and not in the course of his employment, and in disobedience to instructions given to him by his master.” See, also, , 78 So.
Johnson v. Provencal Turpentine Co. 125 So. 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Piske vs. Brooklyn Cooperage Co., , 78 So.
Watson v. Holmes & Barnes, Ltd. 7 La. App. 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
In Piske vs. Brooklyn Cooperage Co., , 78 South 734 , the party killed had temporarily left the building in which he was required to be, and where it was shown his em *212 ployment did not justify him in going, to to the place where he was injured.
Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Co. 90 So. 666 La. 1922