Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Burt v. Davis-Wood Lumber Co., 102 So. 87.

37 citing documents.

O'BRIEN v. Traders and General Insurance Company 136 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Ill, ; Helton v. Tall Timber Lumber Co., 148 La.
La Borde v. McBride 112 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Amyx v. Henry & Hall 79 So. 2d 483 La. 1955
[7] Collins v. Smith, supra; , 102 So.
Lennox v. Standard Acc. Ins. 51 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Frazier v. Malone 45 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1950
The following cases are among the many so holding: , 102 So.
Robinson v. Frost Hardwood Floors 25 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Murphy v. Tremont Lumber Co. 22 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Nesmith v. Reich Bros. 14 So. 2d 767 La. 1943
Collins v. Smith 13 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
The following cases are among the many so holding: , 102 So.
Nesmith v. Reich Bros. 14 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York 7 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Durant v. Industrial Lumber Co. 6 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Spanja v. Thibodaux Boiler Works 2 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Standard Coffee Co. 2 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
McDaniel v. Federal Underwriters 2 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Litton v. Natchitoches Oil Mill, Inc. 195 So. 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
* * * “We cannot agree with the argument that in order to bring the employment of the deceased within the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it must be shown that he received ‘wages,’ meaning ‘a daily rate of pay’ under the contract in force at the time of the hiring.” , 102 So.
Gallaher v. Ricketts 191 So. 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
McKay v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. 189 So. 508 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Merritt v. E. L. Bruce Co. 166 So. 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Hall v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. 158 So. 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Moritz v. K. C. S. Drug Co., Inc. 149 So. 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Felts v. Singletary 143 So. 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Marquez v. Le Blanc 143 So. 108 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1932
Lee v. Mark H. Brown Lumber Co. 131 So. 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
99 , and authorities cited; , 102 So.
Beck v. Dubach Lumber Co. 131 So. 196 La. 1930
112 , , are likewise different from the facts in the instant case.
James v. Hillyer-Deutsch-Edwards, Inc. 130 So. 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
In acting on the case, the court, , 102 So.
Johnson v. Vincennes Bridge Co. 118 So. 820 La. 1928
Johnson v. Vincennes Bridge Co. 119 So. 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendant, to a large extent, seem to rely on the case of Burt vs. Davis-Wood Lumber Company, reported in , 102 So.
Boyett v. Urania Lumber Co. 8 La. App. 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Burt vs. Davis-Wood Lumber Co., , 102 So.
Odom v. Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co. 7 La. App. 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Under the doctrine established in the cases of Burt vs. Davis Wood Lumber Co., , 102 South.
Morgan v. Nelms 5 La. App. 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
(Burt vs. Davis Lumber Co., , 102 South.
Beebe v. McKeithen Construction Co. 5 La. App. 179 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1926
We there held that under such circumstances the plaintiff was not an independent contractor but a laborer, and our ruling was based upon the holding of the Supreme Court in the cases of Burt vs. Davis-Wood Lumber Co., , 102 South.
Powell v. Spencer Bros. 5 La. App. 218 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1926
99 ; Burt vs. Davis-Wood Lumber Co., , 102 South.
Alexander v. Latimer 5 La. App. 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
However, we are unable to draw any clear distinction between the facts developed and those shown in Burt vs. Davis-Wood Lumber Co., , 102 South.
Gilyard v. O'Reilly 4 La. App. 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Mackey v. Fullerton Naval Stores Co. 4 La. App. 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Burt vs. Davis-Wood Lumber Co., , 102 South.
Heine v. Hill, Harris & Co. 2 La. App. 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
It makes no difference, however, whether he was paid by the day or week or month, or whether he was paid so much per square, for his work: See Burt vs. Davis Lumber Co., , 102 South.