DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Glass v. Wise, 99 So. 409.

14 citing documents.

  • O'BRIEN v. Traders and General Insurance Company 136 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    733 ; Glass v. Wise & McAlpin, , 99 So.
  • Warren v. Globe Indemnity Co. 46 So. 2d 66 La. 1950
    118 ; Glass v. Wise & McAlpin, , 99 So.
  • G'sell v. Cassagne 12 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    Spiess Sales Co., supra; , 99 So.
  • Oliphant v. Town of Lake Providence 192 So. 95 La. 1939
    The same principle was announced in Glass v. Wise & McAlpin, , 99 So.
  • Mancuso v. Hurwitz-Mintz Furniture Co. 183 So. 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    Glass v. Wise McAlpin, 155 La 477 , , 411 .
  • Matheny v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 181 So. 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    In Glass v. Wise & McAlpin, , 99 So.
  • Parks v. Hall 179 So. 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    The burden then shifted back to plaintiff to prove that the independent venture of the employee had terminated and that the latter had re-entered and resumed his service with the employer when the cars collided, Glass v. Wise & McAlpin, , 99 So.
  • James v. J. S. Williams & Son, Inc. 150 So. 9 La. 1933
    118, 119 ; Glass v. Wise & McAlpin, , 99 So.
  • James v. J. S. Williams & Son, Inc. 143 So. 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    “To the same effect as the Cusimano Case is that of Glass v. Wise & McAlpin, [ 99 So.
  • Goldman v. Yellow Cab Co. 134 So. 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    It is insisted that the case is within the holding of Glass v. Wise & McAlpin, , 99 So.
  • Embry v. Reserve Natural Gas Co. 12 La. App. 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    733 ; Glass vs. Wise & McAlpin, , 99 So.
  • Blake v. Jefferson-St. Charles Transfer Co. 8 La. App. 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    481 , , the Supreme Court uses the following language: • “There was plainly no departure — no temporary turning aside — from the master’s business to engage in a matter com cerning the chauffeur, and there could be no resumption of the master’s business because the errand- had not been completed.
  • Bardt v. Champon 6 La. App. 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    App. Glass vs. Wise & McAlpin, , 99 South.
  • Bowles v. McGlasson 5 La. App. 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    “Master held liable when servant had fulfilled own purpose, and was returning to resume duties.” Affirmed in Glass vs. Wise, , 99 South.