Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cusimano v. A. S. Spiess Sales Co., 96 So. 118.

27 citing documents.

Castille v. All American Ins. Co. 550 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Spiess Sales Co., , 96 So.
Hebert v. Witherington 520 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Spiess Sales Co., , 96 So.
Fackrell v. Gulley 246 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Bordelon v. Great American Indemnity Company 124 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Excel Machine Works, Inc. 95 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
551, , a plaintiff was allowed $3,000 for a “fracture at the.
Ramsey v. Kallio 62 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
Griffin v. Yellow Cab Co. of Shreveport 61 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
See Cusimano v. [A. S.] Spiess Sales Co. [ ], 96 So.
Dominguez v. American Casualty Co. 46 So. 2d 744 La. 1950
Warren v. Globe Indemnity Co. 46 So. 2d 66 La. 1950
Warren v. Globe Indemnity Co. 30 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
App., , 611, from which we quote: "* * * The trial judge, , 552, 96 So.
G'sell v. Cassagne 12 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Spiess Sales Co., , 96 So.
Warnick v. Louisiana Highway Commission 4 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Spiess Sales Company, , 552, 96 So.
Matheny v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 181 So. 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
ge 410) : “And, in order to constitute a re-entry upon the business of the master under such circumstances, it was not essential for the servant to have reached the zone of his employment or the territory in which he was employed to make deliveries.” The court in the course of its discussion of the question quoted the following paragraph from the Cusimano Case, , 96 So.
Lambert v. Cire 179 So. 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Parks v. Hall 179 So. 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Gilbert v. Trotter 160 So. 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
The most recent, as well as leading, case-on this question, pronounced by our own Supreme Court, , 96 So.
James v. J. S. Williams & Son, Inc. 150 So. 9 La. 1933
82, 85 , 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 166; , 96 So.
Carriel v. Federal Compress & Warehouse Co. 147 So. 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
We are not here concerned with the distinction which the authorities have made in cases like the present where there has been a departure from the employer’s business between “going and coming” ( , 96 So.
James v. J. S. Williams & Son, Inc. 143 So. 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Goldman v. Yellow Cab Co. 134 So. 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
When he got to Turner’s and received the meat he started on his return, not to engage in his employer’s business, but to complete his own business for Volney Mitchell — to deliver the latter’s meat.” , 96 So.
Schaumburg v. Nash-Mississippi Valley Motor Co. 129 So. 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Cusimano vs. Spiess Sales Co., , 96 So.
Blake v. Jefferson-St. Charles Transfer Co. 8 La. App. 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
In the case of Cusimano vs. Spies, , 96 So.
Bowles v. McGlasson 5 La. App. 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
In Cusimani vs. Spies, , the court said: “Master not liable for acts of servants in own interest.
Dill v. Colley 3 La. App. 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
In the case of Cusimano vs. Spies, , the jury returned a verdict of $12,500 which the Supreme Court reduced to $3000.
Ellzey v. Booth Furniture & Carpet Co. 2 La. App. 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
“A. I was delivering furniture; my last delivery was delivering a kitchen cabinet to the place where I just told you and I wa3 on my way back to town to the Booth Furniture Company’s store.” In Cusimano vs. A. S. Spies Sales Co., , 96 South.
Lanauze v. A. Baldwin & Co. 2 La. App. 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Cusimano vs. Spiess Sales Co., , 96 South.
Glass v. Wise 99 So. 409 La. 1923