DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Quave v. Lott-Batson Lumber Co., 92 So. 678.

17 citing documents.

  • Pope v. Coney 119 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
  • Washington v. Holmes Barnes 5 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
  • Williams v. Campbell 185 So. 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
  • Rawls v. Brown Paper Mill Co. 164 So. 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
  • Calhoon v. Meridian Lumber Co. 151 So. 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
  • Gill v. Gullett Gin Co. 147 So. 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    Counsel for plaintiff refers us to the following cases: , 92 So.
  • Nichols v. Tall Timber Lumber Co. of Louisiana 145 So. 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    loyee refuses to allow them to be furnished by the employer.” Justice Rogers, the organ of the court, says: “This provision of the law fixes the maxi- " mum that shall be paid by the employer, but it does not, nor does any other provision of the statute, authorize the deduction of any excess paid without the consent of the employee.” He cites the case of Quave v. Lott-Batson Lumber Company, Ltd., , 92 So.
  • Rodriguez v. Standard Oil Co. 117 So. 269 La. 1928
    712 , this court approved an allowance, under subsection (e), for an injury producing a deformity and stiff-, ness of a finger and the clipping off of the end of another finger, in addition to the allowance specifically provided for the loss of another finge!-; and it is said that, , 92 So.
  • Singleton v. Wyatt Lumber Co. 6 La. App. 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    349 ; Quave vs. Lott-Batson Lumber Co., , 92 South.
  • Seur v. Rumbaugh 6 La. App. 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    349 ; Quave vs. Lott-Batson Lumber Co., , 92 South.
  • Jeane v. Police Jury v. Rnon Parish 113 So. 372 La. 1927
  • Alexander v. Magnolia Pipe Line Co. 5 La. App. 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    And counsel cite, in support of their contention in this case, the case of Quave vs. Lott-Batson Lumber Co., , the syllabus in which is as follows: “1.
  • Fisher v. Pfeifer & Co. 4 La. App. 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
  • Black v. Louisiana Cent. Lumber Co. 109 So. 538 La. 1926
    That is why the subsection commenced with the expression, “In cases not falling within any of the provisions already made.” , 92 So.
  • Burton v. Kaucher 3 La. App. 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    In our opinion, under the authority of: Quave vs. Batson & Co., , 92 South.
  • Thompson v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co. 2 La. App. 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    349 , and Quave vs. Lott-Batson Lumber Co., , 92 South.
  • Stansbury v. Texas Co. 1 La. App. 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    The case Quave vs. Batson-Lott Lumber Co., , 92 South.