Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., 103 So. 303.

85 citing documents.

Benoit v. Capitol Mfg. Co. 617 So. 2d 477 La. 1993
248 (1924), and Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources 580 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
296 ; Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc. , 103 So.
Robbins v. Caraway-Rhodes Veterinary Hospital 315 So. 2d 688 La. 1975
1075 , (1958); Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Jackson v. Lajaunie 270 So. 2d 859 La. 1972
Bolton v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 245 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Gorings v. Edwards 222 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
Plaintiff relies on the Kern rule and the cases following that rule particularly Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Stephney v. Robertson 219 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Pinchera v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 206 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
The rule was first announced in Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Mella v. Continental Emsco 189 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Such a conclusion, in our judgment, would contravene the liberal rule of construction which must be accorded the workmen compensation laws of this state as held in Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Richard v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 175 So. 2d 277 La. 1965
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Richard v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 175 So. 2d 277 La. 1965
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Mercer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 156 So. 2d 606 La. 1963
McCALEB, J., is of the opinion that a writ should be granted as a , 103 So.
Kramer v. Etie 155 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
hazardous features of a business, not hazardous in itself, before recovery is allowed for an injury sustained while performing work of a non-hazardous nature, Professor Malone in his Treatise, “Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation, Law and Practice,” *483 at Section 101, page 25 (pocket part), states: “The unwillingness of the Louisiana courts to apply the doctrine of Byas v. [Hotel] Bentley [Inc.] [ , 103 So.
Mercer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 155 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Leleau v. Jacomine 144 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
1075 , (1958), and Byas v. *924 Hotel Bentley, , 103 So.
Toye v. Browne-McHardy Clinic 131 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
23 :- 1035 which makes hazardous per se trades, businesses and occupations engaged in “the operation, construction, repairs, removal,, maintenance and demolition of * * *, power laundries, * * * ” , 103 So.
Boggs v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company 125 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
"The unwillingness of the Louisiana courts to apply the doctrine of Byas v. Bentley [ , 103 So.
Richmond v. Weiss & Goldring, Inc. 124 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , ; Talbot v. Trinity Universal Ins.
Costanzo v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 124 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
Allen v. Travelers Insurance Co. 124 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
In addition, there is that line of decisions (commencing with Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. 102 So. 2d 461 La. 1958
* * * ” See also Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Pixley v. Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance 102 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
This legal principle is sometimes known as the Byas doctrine, taking its name from Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., 1924, , 103 So.
Fontenot v. Fontenot 100 So. 2d 477 La. 1958
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Talbot v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company 99 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Guillory v. Coal Operators Casualty Company 95 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. 92 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Plaintiff’s counsel relies heavily on Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Landry v. Gilger Drilling Company 92 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
The District Court therefore properly absolved Landry of aggression in the second incident and allowed him recovery, Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Fontenot v. Myers 93 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
660 , "It is well settled in this State that where an employee is engaged in both hazardous and nonhazardous work in the same employment, his injury is compensable though it may occur in the performance of a , 103 So.
Freeman v. Clark 88 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Hammer v. Lazarone 87 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Coleman v. Sears, Roebuck & Company 83 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Brown v. Remington Rand, Inc. 81 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
le effort to remove the instant case from the application of the holding in Gray v. Tre-mont Lumber Co., supra, another well established general principle to the effect that an employee is entitled to recover compensation if he is engaged in employment with reference to, in connection with, incident to, or in promotion of his employer’s trade, business or occupation, , 103 So.
Meyers v. Southwest Region Conference Ass'n of Seventh Day Adventists 79 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
If the interpretation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act can be extended beyond the extremely liberal interpretation given to it in the case of Byas v. Hotel Bentley, supra [ , 103 So.
Green v. Heard Motor Co. 71 So. 2d 849 La. 1954
135 ; Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Harrington v. Franklin's Stores Corp. of New Iberia 55 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
The problem of a , 103 So.
Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co. 54 So. 2d 121 La. 1951
And, since the decision of this court in Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Robin v. Brandin 45 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Reagor v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co. 33 So. 2d 521 La. 1948
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Gonsoulin v. Southern Amusement Co. 32 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Richardson v. American Employers' Ins. Co. 31 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Reagor v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co. 28 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
on that in cases where the business of the employer is not named in the act as being hazardous, and where ordinarily it could not be classified as hazardous per se, that then it is necessary to allege facts from which the conclusion may be fairly drawn, that it is in fact hazardous, and that the employee had some duties that were hazardous, though as said in Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., *Page 531 , 103 So.
Gross v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. 25 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., 1924, , 103 So.
Storm v. Johnson 23 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
It suffices to say that, since the decision in the leading case of Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Brown v. Toler 19 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
656 , a tendency to modify somewhat the holding in the case of Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Collins v. Spielman 8 So. 2d 608 La. 1942
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Stephens v. Catalano 7 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
The case of Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York 7 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Nor can we understand how, in view of the holding in the Byas case [Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Collins v. Spielman 8 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
48 , and Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.
Scott v. Dalton Co. 1 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Williams v. Westdale Corporation 3 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
To sustain the first ground, he relies upon Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., , 103 So.