DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ferguson v. Cady-McFarland Gravel Co., 101 So. 248.

37 citing documents.

  • Benoit v. Capitol Mfg. Co. 617 So. 2d 477 La. 1993
  • Mitchell v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 341 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    The present case is therefore distinguishable from the two cited by plaintiff and from the following cases in which compensation was awarded to employees who were assaulted while clearly within the course and scope of their employment: , 101 So.
  • Rogers v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 173 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
  • O'CONNOR v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. 87 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
  • Smith v. Bankston 75 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
  • Green v. Heard Motor Co. 71 So. 2d 849 La. 1954
  • Gross v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. 25 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    In 1924, the Dyer case was followed in Ferguson v. Gady-McFarland *Page 842 Gravel Co., , 101 So.
  • Milton v. T. J. Moss Tie Co. 20 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    This court requested instructions from the Supreme Court in Ferguson v. Cady-McFarland Gravel Company, reported in , 101 So.
  • Harvey v. Caddo De Soto Cotton Oil Co. 6 So. 2d 747 La. 1942
    And we cannot assume that a man is exposed to the same danger of attack at his own :home, or in some "frequented place, or in the daytime, as he would be when called by his employ- *369 merit to some lonesome spot and in the nighttime.” , 101 So.
  • Harvey v. Caddo De Soto Cotton Oil Co. 6 So. 2d 747 La. 1942
  • Goins v. Shreveport Yellow Cabs, Inc. 200 So. 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    The Supreme Court held that the injury arose out of and in the course of plaintiff’s employment and in rejecting the defense offered, , 101 So.
  • Johnson v. Zurich General AcciDent & Liability Ins. 161 So. 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
  • Thomas v. Shippers' Compress & Warehouse Co. 158 So. 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
  • Favre v. Werk Press Cloth Mfg. Co., Inc. 152 So. 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
  • Smith v. Brown Paper Mill Co., Inc. 152 So. 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
  • Keyhea v. Woodard-Walker Lumber Co. 147 So. 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    *833 This case, we think, falls squarely within the rule announced in Ferguson y. Cady-McFarland Gravel Co., , 101 So.
  • Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co., Inc. 146 So. 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    It was his employer’s business which called him to the place and time of the accident and not his own pleasure or business ; and hence his injuries arose out of his pursuit of his employer’s business and not out of his pursuit of his own business or pleasure.” See, also, , 101 So.
  • Crysel v. R.W. Briggs Co. 146 So. 489 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1933
    App. 96 ; Id., , 101 So.
  • Daigle v. Moody 144 So. 596 La. 1932
    335, 337 , the court said, speaking of the Workmen’s Compensation Law: “Under that statute the liability of an employer is not to be determined by negligence or want of negligence.” , 101 So.
  • Kern v. Southport Mill, Ltd. 141 So. 19 La. 1932
  • Millspaugh v. Opelousas Cotton Gin Co. 139 So. 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
  • Catherin v. Commercial Casualty Ins. 138 So. 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
  • Richardson v. Crescent Forwarding & Transp. Co. 135 So. 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    The fact remains that the deceased met his death while actually engaged in performing duties, whether main or incidental, called for by his employment.’ “See, also, , 101 So.
  • Brown v. Vacuum Oil Co. 132 So. 117 La. 1930
  • Christofferson v. Board of Commissioners 130 So. 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    But a reading of the whole statute and of the decisions of the Supreme Court interpretative thereof leads to the inevitable conclusion that no such distinction was intended to be made by the legislators who enacted the statute in question, and it is very evident that our Supreme Court is of this opinion, because, , 101 So.
  • Labostrie v. Weber 130 So. 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    The fact remains that the deceased met his death while actually engaged in performing duties, whether main or incidental, called for by his employment.” See, also, , 101 So.
  • Garic v. Garic 130 So. 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    We believe the instant case to be controlled by • the case of Ferguson v. Cady-McFarland; Gravel Co., , 101 So.
  • Patrick v. Grayson & Yeary 127 So. 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    256 ; Ferguson vs. Cady-McFarland Gravel Co., , 101 So.
  • Pickett v. Southern Carbon Co. 7 La. App. 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    677 , and Ferguson vs. Cady-McFarland Gravel Company, , 101 So.
  • Phelps v. United Carbon Co. 8 La. App. 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    Ferguson vs. Cady-McFarland Gravel Co., , 101 So.
  • Conaway v. Marine Oil Co. 110 So. 181 La. 1926
    ect, that one of the material factors in determining whether an injury to a workman arises out of his employment is whether “the nature of the employment was such that the risk from which the injury resulted was greater for the workman than for a person not engaged in the employment.” To the same effect are the cases of Dyer v. Rapides Lumber Co., supra, , 101 So.
  • Schexneider v. General American Tank Car Corp. 5 La. App. 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    Ferguson vs. McFarlane Gravel Co., , 101 South.
  • Flowers v. Williams-Rieves Lumber Co. 5 La. App. 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    In the case of Ferguson vs. Cady-McFarland Gravel Co., , 101 South.
  • Gilyard v. O'Reilly 4 La. App. 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    677 , the court said: “Where a workman is exposed to some risk manifestly necessitated by his employment he is entitled to his compensation.” In Ferguson vs. Cady-McFarland, , 101 South.
  • Conaway & Clark v. Marine Oil Co. 5 La. App. 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    And - we cannot assume that a man is exposed to the same danger of attack at his own home or in some frequented place, or in the day *137 time, as lie would be when called by his employment to some lonely spot and in the night time.” In Ferguson vs. Kody-McFarlane Gravel Co., , 101 South.
  • Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc. 103 So. 303 La. 1924
  • Ferguson v. Cady-McFarland Gravel Co. 1 La. App. 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
    The opinion of the Court has not yet been published, but Will be, we presume, in Ferguson vs. Cady-McFarland Gravel Co., , 101 South.