Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corp., 92 So. 341.

29 citing documents.

Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Kelly 192 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
It is noted in the majority opinion that Section 18, Act No. 20 of 1914, , , to permit both the employee and employer to file a suit in case of a dispute over, or failure to agree upon a claim for compensation.
Moore v. Bridges & Bell 115 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation, , 92 So.
Saia v. T. Smith & Sons, Inc. 100 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
See Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation, , 92 So.
Gary v. Marquette Cas. Co. 72 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation, , 92 So.
Blanchard v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. 59 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation, , 92 So.
Morgan v. American Bitumuls Co. 47 So. 2d 739 La. 1950
Appropriate, therefore, in view of this limited incapacity, are those decisions which have awarded compensation for partial disability, as distinguished from total disability, such as Washington v. Holmes & Barnes, Limited, et al., La.App., ; Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation, , 92 So.
McClung v. Delta Shipbuilding Co. 34 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
In their brief in support of an application for rehearing counsel for plaintiff cite two cases, , 92 So.
Thomas v. Oxendine 33 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
He relies, in support of his contention, on certain cases decided by the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court, prior to the amendment of the Compensation Act by Act 85 of 1926, *Page 772 , 92 So.
Lanoue v. Century Indemnity Co. 30 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Thornton v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. 21 So. 2d 46 La. 1944
849 ; Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corp., , 92 So.
Jones v. International Paper Co. 11 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Wiley v. Frost Lumber Industries 11 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Mickley v. T. J. Moss Tie Co. 189 So. 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Criticized Pitts v. M. W. Kellogg Co. 186 So. 389 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
258 , wherein we held that such an action was premature under Section 18, Subsection 1 (B), as amended by Act No. 85 of 1926, and criticizes our opinion as being in conflict with the cases of Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation, , 92 So.
Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. 173 So. 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Ref’g Corp’n, , 92 So.
Reynolds v. Forcum-James Co. 158 So. 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
But in Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation, , 92 So.
McGruder v. Service Drayage Co. 158 So. 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
126 ; Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corp., , 92 So.
Wilson v. Union Indemnity Co. 150 So. 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
126 ; Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corp., , 92 So.
Roy v. Mutual Rice Co. of Louisiana, Inc. 149 So. 508 La. 1933
The case of Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation, , 92 So.
Thibeau v. Dutton & Mercer 136 So. 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
page 800, , and the decision of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, in Vining v. Lock, Moore & Co., 1 La.
Moss v. Levin 119 So. 558 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1929
849 , and Daniels vs. Shreveport Producing & Refining Co., , 92 So.
Board of Com'rs of Caddo Levee Dist. v. Pure Oil Co. 120 So. 373 La. 1928
796 , , on rehearing, the court said: “And the fact is that, even if he had possessed in legal as well as actual good faith, he still would owe this accounting; since oil and other minerals taken from the land by a possesser in good faith continue to belong to the owner of the land, and therefore must be restored to this ow
LeSuer v. Rumbaugh 8 La. App. 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
We do not think that this ruling would be inconsistent with the decision cited by counsel, Daniels vs. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation, , 92 So.
Landwehr v. American Can Co. 5 La. App. 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
126 ; and Daniels vs. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation, , 92 So.
Black v. Louisiana Cent. Lumber Co. 109 So. 538 La. 1926
126 ; and Daniels v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corporation, , 92 So.
Black v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co. 2 La. App. 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Daniels vs. Shreveport P. & R. Corp., , 92 South.
Vining v. Lock, Moore & Co. 1 La. App. 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
In a later case, Daniels vs. Shreveport Refining Corporation, ; 92 South.
Maleby v. Gulf Refining Co. 1 La. App. 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
Subsequently, plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to set aside the remanding order, upon two grounds, viz: (1) That the Court was without authority to issue said order and cited in support of that contention the case of Deniels vs. Shreveport Producing & Refining Co., , 92 South 341 ; (2) That he had never been notified of the application to remand by defendant’s counsel or the affidavit aforesaid, and he annexed to his motion an affidavit of J. R. Porten, Secretary & Treasurer of the Woo
Kenner v. Standard Oil Co. 1 La. App. 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
511 ; Daniels vs. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corp., , 92 South.