Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., 95 So. 99.

56 citing documents.

Gautreaux v. Rheem Mfg. Co. 694 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
McKee v. Inspectorate America Corp. 636 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Adams v. Time Saver Stores, Inc. 615 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Weber v. State 608 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Ducote v. Albert 521 So. 2d 399 La. 1988
*404 23:1021; see also, , 95 So.
Beard v. Wilson Wholesale Distributors, Inc. 215 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
In the Dick case, (Dick v. Gravel Logging Co.), , 95 So.
Bryant v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 163 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
933 , ; Stevens v. Mitchell, 234 La.
O'BRIEN v. Traders and General Insurance Company 136 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
350 ; Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Hatten v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. 112 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
La Borde v. McBride 112 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
350 ; Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Stansbury v. Magnolia Petroleum Company 91 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
In the Dick case, (Dick v. Gravel Logging Co.), , 95 So.
O'CONNOR v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. 87 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
412 ; Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Amyx v. Henry & Hall 79 So. 2d 483 La. 1955
87 ; Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Green v. Heard Motor Co. 71 So. 2d 849 La. 1954
Frazier v. Malone 45 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1950
87 ; Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co. 40 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
In the Dick case, (Dick v. Gravel Logging Co.), , 95 So.
Distinguished Allgood v. Loeb 22 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
933 , ) are clearly distinguishable from the situation presented in the instant case.
Murphy v. Tremont Lumber Co. 22 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Plaintiff relies upon the following cases, to-wit: Dick v. Gravel Logging Company, Inc., , 95 So.
Buettner v. Polar Bar Ice Cream Co. 17 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
See Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Nesmith v. Reich Bros. 14 So. 2d 767 La. 1943
Collins v. Smith 13 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
87 ; Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 994, 95 So.
Nesmith v. Reich Bros. 14 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Justice Rogers in Dick v. Gravel Logging Company, Inc., , 95 So.
Durant v. Industrial Lumber Co. 6 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
350 ; Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Miller v. Wyatt Lumber Mfg. Co. 3 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
However, this fact alone cannot control in deciding the relationship that existed between them for when all the facts are considered, which must be done (Dick v. Gravel Logging Company, Inc., , 95 So.
Spanja v. Thibodaux Boiler Works 2 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
The facts of the case, we think, , 95 So.
Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Standard Coffee Co. 2 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
350 ; Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Litton v. Natchitoches Oil Mill, Inc. 195 So. 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
The employment of the decedent in the case of Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Gallaher v. Ricketts 191 So. 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
350 ; Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Hecker v. Betz 172 So. 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
1, page 286: “It would * * * appear safe to say that one indispensable element to his char *819 acter as an independent contractor is that he must have contracted to do a specific work and have the right to control the mode and manner of doing it.” We find, also, that our Supreme Court, , 95 So.
Merritt v. E. L. Bruce Co. 166 So. 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Our attention has also been directed by plaintiffs’ , 95 So.
Hall v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. 158 So. 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Crysel v. Gifford-Hill & Co. 158 So. 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Davis v. Buckley 153 So. 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Marquez v. Le Blanc 143 So. 108 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1932
350 ; Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Gousoulin v. Lake Charles Stevedores, Inc. 139 So. 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Harris v. Louisiana Oil Refining Corp. 137 So. 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Lee v. Mark H. Brown Lumber Co. 131 So. 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
ith his own equipment in carrying on his business, the mere fact that an owner of a truck with others owning trucks is engaged in doing *297 work which is necessary to be done in conducting a hazardous business, does not indicate that they are independent contractors, but where they are employed by the owner of the hazardous business, they are, we think, employees ( , 95 So.
Beck v. Dubach Lumber Co. 131 So. 196 La. 1930
James v. Hillyer-Deutsch-Edwards, Inc. 130 So. 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Clements v. Luby Oil Co. 129 So. 526 La. 1930
This ruling is not in conflict with Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Goetschel v. Glassell-Wilson Co. 127 So. 81 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1930
“Rasmussen Construction Company, “Martin Rasmussen.” In the case of Dick vs. Gravel Logging Co., Inc., , 95 So.
Plick v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxicab Co. 127 So. 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
994 , ; Philps v. Guy Drilling Co., 143 La.
Johnson v. Vincennes Bridge Co. 118 So. 820 La. 1928
Menzel v. Southern Stevedoring Co. 7 La. App. 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
s.” Page 402, S. 3: “The term ‘wages’ as used in this act is defined to mean the daily rate of pay at which the service rendered by the injured employee is recompensed under the contract of hiring in force at the time of the injury, etc.” The defendant finds no support for the theory upon which he would base his interpretation of the words “the daily rate of pay.” The case of Dick vs. Gravel Co., , 95 So.
Boyett v. Urania Lumber Co. 8 La. App. 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Dick vs. Gravel Logging Co., , 95 So.
Odom v. Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co. 7 La. App. 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
87 , and Dick vs. Gravel Logging Co., , 95 South.
Robinson v. Younse Lbr. Co. 8 La. App. 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Dick vs. Gravel Logging Co., , 93 So.
Redding v. Wilson & Co. 6 La. App. 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
There is no averment that defendant maintained any supervision or control over plaintiff in doing the w'ork and it has been held by the Supreme Court in Deck vs. Gravel Logging Co., , 95 So.
Joseph v. Board of Commissioners 5 La. App. 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Each case must be considered in the light of its own facts and attending circumstances.” Dick vs. Gravel Logging Co., , 95 South.
Gilyard v. O'Reilly 4 La. App. 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
87 ; Dick vs. Gravel Logging Co., , 95 South.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by