Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Deardorf v. Hunter, 106 So. 831.

23 citing documents.

Eric A. Lannon v. Pherian, LLC La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
In describing an example of an equitable defense for non-payment of an employee’s wages in Batiansila, So.
Hebert v. Insurance Center, Inc. 706 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
In a scholarly analysis, this court traced the history of the employer's equitable defense to the 1926 , 106 So.
Domite v. Imperial Trading Co., Inc. 641 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Lowery v. Cenla Beverage, Inc. 333 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
McCaskill v. Deviney Construction Company 323 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Miletello v. Noble Drilling Corporation 316 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
In an early case interpreting that act, , 106 So.
Porter v. Lombardino 303 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
Otwell v. Howard Lumber & Supply Company, Inc. 283 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
Hendrix v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. 234 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
2d 538, 539-540 (1959), our Supreme Court observes: "On several occasions this court has considered the mentioned statute and has held that the language thereof `is not so peremptory as to forbid an equitable defense against the penalty' ( , 106 So.
Becker v. Choate 204 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
Mitchell v. First National Life Insurance Co. of La. 109 So. 2d 61 La. 1959
Clevy v. O'MEARA 108 So. 2d 538 La. 1959
On several occasions this court has considered the mentioned statute and has held that the language thereof "is not so peremptory as to forbid an equitable defense against the penalty" ( , 106 So.
Elliott v. General Gas Corp. 85 So. 2d 55 La. 1955
Strickland v. American Pitch Pine Export Co. 71 So. 2d 338 La. 1954
mployee has resigned, within twenty-four hours after such discharge or resignation, to pay the laborer or employee the amount due under the terms of employment whether the employment is by the day, week or month, upon demand being made upon the employer by the discharged or resigned laborer or employee at the place where the employee or laborer is usually paid.” , 106 So.
Bannon v. Techeland Oil Corporation 17 So. 2d 921 La. 1944
Goodwin v. Southern Kraft Corporation 6 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Hazel v. Robinson & Young 174 So. 105 La. 1937
In the case of Deardorf v. Hunter (1926) , 106 So.
Davis Finance & Securities Co. v. O'Neal 160 So. 463 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1935
Oller v. Bender 146 So. 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
We find this act has been construed by our courts in the following cases: , 106 So.
Basinger v. Mt. Vernon Oil & Gas Co. 146 So. 32 La. 1932
214 , , this court decided as follows: “Act No. 150, of 1920, making employer failing to pay discharged employees within 24 hours after demand liable for wages from de-' mand until paid or tendered, held not to preclude equitable defense against penalty.” In all other respects we find the .judgment correct.
Perryman v. Boisseau 138 So. 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Neeley v. Magnolia Gas Co. 131 So. 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
856, 857 , in which this court said: “The statute must be strictly construed as to the right to recover penalties, against which equitable defenses may be interposed ( , 106 So.
Whitehead v. E. J. Deas Co. 118 So. 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
The statute must be strictly construed as to the right to recover penalties, against which equitable defenses may be interposed (Deardorf vs. Hunter, , 106 So.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by