Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bell v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., 92 So. 350.

27 citing documents.

Hickman Ex Rel. Iles v. Southern Pacific Transport Co. 262 So. 2d 385 La. 1972
760 (1932); Bell v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., Ltd., , 92 So.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Richard 208 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
See Bell v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., Limited, , 92 So.
O'BRIEN v. Traders and General Insurance Company 136 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
729 ; Bell v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., Ltd., , 92 So.
La Borde v. McBride 112 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
729 ; Bell v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., Ltd., , 92 So.
O'CONNOR v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. 87 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
See Bell v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., Limited, , 92 So.
Amyx v. Henry & Hall 79 So. 2d 483 La. 1955
Nesmith v. Reich Bros. 14 So. 2d 767 La. 1943
257 , and with the following decisions by this court: , 92 So.
Durant v. Industrial Lumber Co. 6 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
On the other hand, the following cases are some of those which lend support in some respects to the contention of the plaintiff that he was not an independent contractor, but an employee of the defendant: Bell v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., Ltd., , 92 So.
Spanja v. Thibodaux Boiler Works 2 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Standard Coffee Co. 2 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
729 ; Bell v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., Ltd., , 92 So.
Gallaher v. Ricketts 191 So. 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
729 ; Bell v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., Ltd., , 92 So.
Merritt v. E. L. Bruce Co. 166 So. 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Hall v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. 158 So. 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
o renders service, other than manual labor, for a specified recompense for a specified result either as a unit or a whole, under the control of his principal as to results of his work only, and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished.” The three leading cases decided by our Supreme Court, upholding the relationship of employer and employees, are, , 92 So.
Dinet v. Orleans Dredging Co., Inc. 149 So. 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
888 , 19 A. L. R. 206; , 92 So.
Marquez v. Le Blanc 143 So. 108 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1932
729 ; Bell v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., Ltd., , 92 So.
Beck v. Dubach Lumber Co. 131 So. 196 La. 1930
James v. Hillyer-Deutsch-Edwards, Inc. 130 So. 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Johnson v. Vincennes Bridge Co. 118 So. 820 La. 1928
Boyett v. Urania Lumber Co. 8 La. App. 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Defendant’s counsel cite the cases of Bell vs. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., , 92 So.
Robinson v. Younse Lbr. Co. 8 La. App. 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Bell vs. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., , 92 So.
Morgan v. Nelms 5 La. App. 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
99 ; Bell vs. Lumber Co., , 92 South.
Gilyard v. O'Reilly 4 La. App. 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Heine v. Hill, Harris & Co. 2 La. App. 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
In the case of Bell vs. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., , 92 South.
Burt v. Davis-Wood Lumber Co. 102 So. 87 La. 1924
Clark v. Alexandria Cooperage & Lumber Co. 102 So. 96 La. 1924
BRUNOT, J. When this suit was filed, , 92 So.
Durrett v. Woods 99 So. 430 La. 1923
Dick v. Gravel Logging Co. 95 So. 99 La. 1922
729 , while plaintiff’s , 92 South.