DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Prevost v. Gheens Realty Co., 92 So. 38.

23 citing documents.

  • Crickett Miller v. Blacktype Farms La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Miller v. Blacktype Farms 952 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Templet v. Intracoastal Truck Line, Inc. 217 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    262 stated “in principle the plaintiff was as though upon the actual premises of the defendant, * * * ” The court then added it thought plaintiff “was performing services arising out of and incidental to his employment.” , 92 So.
  • Danziger v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance 146 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    By which is meant *686 that the accident must he the result of some risk to which the employee is subjected in the course of his employment and to which he would not have been subjected had he not been so employed.” Judge McBride cited and discussed the following pertinent cases: , 92 So.
  • Rosenquist v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company 78 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
  • Bacle v. Cochran & Franklin Co. 196 So. 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
  • Rogers v. Mengel Co. 176 So. 322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    781, 782 , the court, in construing the word “premises” in this same connection, stated: “Evidently the premises meant are not any lands which the employer owns, but rather the immediate premises or grounds upon which the plant is located.” , 92 So.
  • Thomas v. Shippers' Compress & Warehouse Co. 158 So. 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
  • Mahaffey v. Mill Creek Lumber Co. 147 So. 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
  • Crysel v. R.W. Briggs Co. 146 So. 489 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1933
  • Snear v. Eiserloh 144 So. 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
  • Kern v. Southport Mill, Ltd. 141 So. 19 La. 1932
  • Boutte v. R. L. Roland & Son 132 So. 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
  • Thibodeaux v. Yount Lee Oil Co. 128 So. 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    A Louisiana decis’on which expresses this principle is found in the case of Prevost vs. Gheens Realty Co., , 92 So.
  • Sellers v. Louisiana Sawmill Co. 8 La. App. 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    670 ; Prevost vs. Gheens Realty Co., , 92 So.
  • LeBlanc v. Ohio Oil Co. 7 La. App. 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    App. 260 , and Prevost vs. Gheens, , 92 South.
  • Watson v. Holmes & Barnes, Ltd. 7 La. App. 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    Counsel for plaintiff refers us to the case reported in Prevost vs. Gheens Realty Co., , 92 South.
  • Baker v. Texas Pipe Line Co. 5 La. App. 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    Provost vs. Gheens Realty Co., , 92 South.
  • Vidrine v. Evangeline Gravel Co. 4 La. App. 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    ■ • In Prevost vs. Gheens Realty Co., , 92 South.
  • Nugent v. Lee Lumber Co. 4 La. App. 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    App. 260 , or Provost vs. Gheens Realty Co., , 92 South.
  • Bass v. Shreveport-Eldorado Pipe Line Co. 4 La. App. 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    There the court said: “It is not denied that the injury occurred while plaintiff was riding on defendant’s handcar running on defendant’s tramroad from defendant’s corral to a boarding house at defendant’s mill run by defendant’s authority.” The court’s holding in that case was based upon the principle laid down in the case of Provost vs. Gheens Realty Co., , 92 South.
  • Jones v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co. 2 La. App. 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    In Prevost vs. Gheens, , 92 South, 38 , our Supreme Court said: “When an employee is going from his work to his lodging house, on the premises where he works, he is within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Section 1 of the Employer’s liability Act, ‘performing services arising out of and incidental to his employment in the course of his employe
  • Lagrone v. McIntyre Lumber Co. 1 La. App. 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    We think the case falls within the principle of Provost vs. Gheens Realty Co., , 92 South.