Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brown v. Vacuum Oil Co., 132 So. 117.
- McLaughlin v. Hill City Oil Co./Jubilee Exxon 702 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
- Sharbono v. Steve Lang & Son Loggers 696 So. 2d 1382 La. 1997
-
Marino v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
433 So. 2d 1075
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Schexneider, supra; , 132 So.
- Citizen v. Theodore Daigle and Bro., Inc. 418 So. 2d 598 La. 1982
-
Citizen v. Theodore Daigle & Brother
392 So. 2d 741
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
84 (Orl.Cir.1926); , 132 So.
- Green v. Heard Motor Co. 71 So. 2d 849 La. 1954
- Blanchard v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. 59 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
- Morgan v. Standard Accident Ins. 51 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
- Morgan v. American Bitumuls Co. 47 So. 2d 739 La. 1950
-
Gross v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co.
25 So. 2d 837
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Section 28 was not discussed in Brown v. Vacuum Oil Co., 1930, , 132 So.
-
Goins v. Shreveport Yellow Cabs, Inc.
200 So. 481
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
been attacked, robbed of his employer’s property, and injured on a *483 return trip to Alexandria, before he began to carry the shotgun, he would certainly have been entitled to compensation; and, since he has been injured, accidentally, by a weapon carried to prevent being robbed and perhaps injured, it seems clear to us that his case is compensable.’ “ , 132 So.
- Como v. Union Sulphur Co. 182 So. 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
-
Smith v. Turner Lumber Co.
174 So. 699
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
That this construction of that provision of the statute is the proper one, we think is borne out by a , 132 So.
- 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
- Vignaul v. Howze 150 So. 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
- Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co., Inc. 146 So. 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
- Daigle v. Moody 144 So. 596 La. 1932
- Kern v. Southport Mill, Ltd. 141 So. 19 La. 1932
- Catherin v. Commercial Casualty Ins. 138 So. 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
-
Thibeau v. Dutton & Mercer
136 So. 186
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
holding: “If the plaintiff had suffered the loss of the use of his leg entirely, he would have been entitled to 65% of his wages for 175 weeks, which would have been Twenty & 47/100 ($20.47) Dollars a week.