Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Durrett v. Woods, 99 So. 430.

18 citing documents.

Jones v. Chicago Mill Lumber Co. 15 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
This holding is supported by the following rather recent decisions of the Supreme Court: , 99 So.
Owers v. Louisiana Long Leaf Lumber Co. 14 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Robichaux v. Realty Operators, Inc. 196 So. 23 La. 1940
Robichaux v. Realty Operators, Inc. 191 So. 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Comeaux v. South Coast Corporation 175 So. 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Tregre v. Kratzer 148 So. 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
The court held, in that case, that a gas well could not be operated commercially without a pipe line, and said: “We therefore think that the operation of a gas pipe line is the putting in operation a gas well and it comes under the statute irrespective of who owns the gas well.” , 99 So.
Charity Hospital of Louisiana v. Board of School Directors 140 So. 60 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1932
Eaves v. Hillyer-Edwards-Fuller, Inc. 139 So. 510 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1932
Counsel cites a number of Supreme Court decisions, and apparently relies most strongly upon a , 90 So.
Sutton v. N. O. Public Service, Inc. 130 So. 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
App. 93 , and syphillis, , 99 So.
Seabury v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corporation 130 So. 1 La. 1930
Wright v. Louisiana Ice & Utilities Co. 129 So. 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Seabury v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. 127 So. 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
6, *155 one employing an independent contractor was liable for the death of one working for the contractor, if the workman was an employee and not himself an independent contractor,” and conceding that the business of Jarrell, “teaming contractor in the oil field,” was á hazardous business, within the meaning of the statute ( , 99 So.
Arndt v. D. H. Holmes Co. 119 So. 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Arender v. Grant Timber & Manufacturing Co. 119 So. 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
256 ; Durret vs. Woods, , 99 So.
Dartez v. Sterling Sugars, Inc. 7 La. App. 414 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1928
273 , where the court had the following to say on the subject: “It is the occupation in which the person is employed to perform services, rather than his particular duties, that determines the application of the act.” Our decision was further grounded on the case of Durette vs. Woods, , 90 So.
Jackson v. Young 6 La. App. 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
The only case in the Supreme Court that we think has any material bearing on this question is that of Durrett vs. Woods, .
Mackey v. Fullerton Naval Stores Co. 4 La. App. 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
In the case of Durrett vs. Woods, , 99 South.
Jones v. Louisiana Oil Refining Corp. 3 La. App. 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
See Durrett vs. Woods, , 99 South.