Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Shipp v. Bordelon, 94 So. 399.

59 citing documents.

Zack v. Gurvich 701 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Norton ex rel. Norton v. Hale 505 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Honeycutt v. International Paper Co. 421 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Abadie v. Boudreaux 398 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Stelly v. Waggoner Estates 355 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Lushute v. Diesi 354 So. 2d 179 La. 1978
Robbins v. Caraway-Rhodes Veterinary Hospital 299 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Paragraph 2 of Section 1 of Act No. 20 of 1914; , 94 So.
Paige v. Tregre 283 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Broussard v. Adams 270 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Scott v. Young Womens Christian Ass'n 263 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Doss v. American Ventures, Inc. 261 So. 2d 615 La. 1972
(Emphasis ours) We discussed the numerous cases of this Court and of the Court of Appeal 3 which had adhered to the principle set forth in the leading case on the subject, , 94 So.
Fontenot v. Travelers Insurance Co. 236 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Ponthieux v. Lindsay 226 So. 2d 482 La. 1969
Ponthieux v. Lindsay 226 So. 2d 482 La. 1969
Lyons v. Pirello 194 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Washington v. Harvey 164 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Edwards v. Stafford 153 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Effler v. Edwards 142 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
McDonald v. Ouachita Commercial Insurance Agency, Inc. 129 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
292 , 107 5o.2d 645, 646, wherein the following language from Shipp v. Bordelon, 1922, , 94 So.
McMorris v. Home Indemnity Insurance Company 107 So. 2d 645 La. 1958
■ Decisive here, we think, , 94 So.
McMorris v. Home Indemnity Co. 94 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
In Prater v. Sun Indemnity Co. of N. Y. [La.App.], , the Court again quoted with approval the language used in Shipp v. Bordelon [ ], 94 So.
Wynn v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 85 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
529 , , had occasion to review a ruling of this court which presented for our consideration the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the case of Shipp v. Bordelon, 1922, , 94 So.
Stepan v. Louisiana State Board of Education 78 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
In support of the Board’s position, , 94 So.
Landry v. Fuselier 78 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Cannon v. Michigan Mut. Liability Co. 66 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Speed v. Page 62 So. 2d 824 La. 1952
In support of the first proposition, , 94 So.
Fields v. General Casualty Co. of America 45 So. 2d 85 La. 1950
Paragraph 2 of Section 1 of Act No. 20 of 1914; , 94 So.
Brooks v. Smith 41 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Prater v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York 38 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Richardson v. American Employers' Ins. Co. 31 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Collins v. Spielman 8 So. 2d 608 La. 1942
Stephens v. Catalano 7 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York 7 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Robinson v. Atkinson 3 So. 2d 604 La. 1941
Williams v. Westdale Corporation 3 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Robinson v. Atkinson 3 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Lewis v. A. Moresi Co. 196 So. 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
That, it seemed to us, , 94 So.
Weaver v. Mutual Building & Homestead Ass'n 195 So. 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
order that there be liability in compensation, not only must it be shown that the employee was engaged in the trade, business or occupation of the employer, but that it must also appear that the employer was engaged in one of those occupations contemplated by the compensation statute, Act No. 20 of 1914, as amended, and it is because of this principle that the Supreme Court, , 94 So.
Rayburn v. De Moss 193 So. 579 La. 1940
Mitcham v. Urania Lumber Co. 185 So. 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Hecker v. Betz 172 So. 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
dry goods and ready-to-wear articles in the town of Natchitoches, Louisiana; that being desirous of having a home built for himself he contracted with plaintiff to build it for him; that the building of the dwelling was no part of his, Iglehart’s trade, business or occupation nor incidental thereto.” , 94 So.
McAllister v. Peoples Homestead & Savings Ass'n 171 So. 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
App. 797 ; , *132 94 So.
Rester v. Community Stores, Inc. 169 So. 183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Reeves v. Globe Indemnity Co. of New York 168 So. 488 La. 1936
Caldwell v. George Sproull Co. 164 So. 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Wilkie v. Langlois 164 So. 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
In this case the failure is substantial, even to such extent that, if the question as to whether the occupation was hazardous should be considered on the merits, in the light of the evidence introduced, it would result only in the rejection of plaintiff's demand.” , 94 So.
Atkins v. Holsum Cafeteria, Inc. 159 So. 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Gerstmayr v. Kolb 158 So. 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Faulkner v. Milner-Fuller, Inc. 154 So. 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Stockstill v. Sears-Roebuck & Co. 151 So. 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934