Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pierre v. Barringer, 88 So. 691.

41 citing documents.

Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill and Lumber Company 278 So. 2d 5 La. 1973
Harris v. Primos 98 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Coleman v. Sears, Roebuck & Company 83 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
Turner v. Maryland Casualty Co. 44 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1950
Liner v. Travelers Ins. Co. 41 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
To support this ruling, , 88 So.
Moss v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. 35 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1948
Brooks v. Smith 35 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Laperouse v. McWilliams Dredging Co. 35 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1948
On the question of sufficiency of the petition, , 88 So.
Fields v. Brown Paper Mill Co. 28 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Schenck v. Aaa Auto Wrecking Co. 13 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Kirby v. Terminal Paper Bag Co., Inc. 6 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Scott v. Dalton Co. 1 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Allen v. Yantis 196 So. 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Como v. Union Sulphur Co. 182 So. 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Jackson v. Southern Kraft Corporation 183 So. 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Sanders v. M. Feitel House Wrecking Co. 180 So. 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Staples v. Henderson Jersey Farms, Inc. 181 So. 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Wilkie v. Langlois 164 So. 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
273, 274 , where it is said: “ , 88 So.
Freiss v. Lone Star Cement Co. 161 So. 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Brown v. Edwards 160 So. 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Faulkner v. Milner-Fuller, Inc. 154 So. 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Hollinsworth v. Crossett Lumber Co. 153 So. 722 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Favre v. Werk Press Cloth Mfg. Co., Inc. 152 So. 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
507 , , 88 So, 691 , are not in point because the court in each case reached the conclusion that the injured employee had .abandoned his post ’and voluntarily exposed himself to a danger in another part of the premises of the employer wholly disassociated and disconnected with his employment.
Stockstill v. Sears-Roebuck & Co. 151 So. 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Ford v. City of Alexandria 151 So. 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Co. 151 So. 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
In siieh cases the technical rules of evidence and procedure are materially relaxed (subsection 2 of section 18, Act No. 20 of 1914, as amended by Act No. 85 of 1926); and, , 88 So.
Snear v. Eiserloh 144 So. 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
And Second, that at the time of the accident plaintiff was not engaged in the performance of any service for which he had been employed — the unloading of a motortruck — but had voluntarily undertaken to assist in the loading of a truck, which loading formed no part of his duties; , 88 So.
Daigle v. Moody 144 So. 596 La. 1932
Bernard v. International Harvester Co. 144 So. 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
4, of that act as amended by Act No. 234 of 1920', that: “The judge shall not be bound by the usual common law or statutory rules of evidence or by any technical or formal rules of procedure other [than] as herein provided.” , 88 So.
Daigle v. Moody 140 So. 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Jones v. Wyatt Lumber Co. 137 So. 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Nance v. United Fruit Co. 131 So. 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
He had deserted his post of duty at the furnace, and wandered some distance from the boiler when he met with the accident.” , 88 So.
Liner v. Riverside Gravel Co. 127 So. 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
s was outside of the scope of young Liner’s duties in clearing the banks of the bayou, and that fact being established, it must be conceded that plaintiffs cannot recover compensation unless the evidence established that young Liner was instructed by defendant to place the belt on the machinery, or to do work in which the work of placing the belt on the machinery was a part (Pierre vs. Barringer, , 88 So.
Bordelon v. N. O. Terminal Co. 129 So. 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Webre v. Graugnard 123 So. 168 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1929
The principle involved was approved by the Supreme Court of the State in the case of Pierre vs. Barringer, , 88 So.
Thiemann v. Nat'l Refrigerator & Fixture Co. 120 So. 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
The case of Pierre vs. Barringer, , 88 So.
Gooding v. Beauregard Laundry Co. 120 So. 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
The law of this case is set forth by the Supreme Court in Pierre vs. Barringer, So 691.
Clark v. Alexandria Cooperage & Lumber Co. 102 So. 96 La. 1924
Lemieux v. Cousin 7 Pelt. 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1923
Dewey v. Lutcher-Moore Lumber Co. 92 So. 273 La. 1922
Hale v. Gilliland Oil Co. 91 So. 853 La. 1922

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by