Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 149 So. 434.

55 citing documents.

Lott v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 377 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
In support of this position plaintiff refers us to Rylander v. T. Smith and Sons, Inc., King v. American Tank and Equipment Corp., 144 So.
Spencer v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. 152 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
939 , ; Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Franklin v. Old Colony Insurance Company 150 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
939 , ; Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Brown v. Benton Creosoting Co. 147 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
939 , ; Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Venable v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 142 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
In the case of Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Shuff v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 134 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
In the case of Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Hoffman v. City of New Orleans 125 So. 2d 774 La. 1961
But such conclusion is not in keeping with numerous decisions of this court commencing with the landmark case of Rylander v. T. Smith and Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Fontenot v. Travelers Insurance Company 125 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
531 , ; and Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, 1933, , 149 So.
Pope v. Coney 119 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
We quote the following pertinent language appearing in the Jarrell case, supra: "In the case of Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Fourcade v. Ryan Stevedoring Co. 117 So. 2d 587 La. 1960
He went to the Shape-up on Canal Street, and the usual procedure is, the Union makes all the stevedoring and steamship companies abide by it, according to the Union Contract.” 4 In Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, , 149 So.
Sepulvado v. Argonaut Underwriters Insurance Co. 111 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 1933, , 149 So.
Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters 89 So. 2d 399 La. 1956
Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
O'CONNOR v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. 87 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
See Calhoon v. Meridian Lumber Co., supra; Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, *23 Inc., , 149 So.
Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters 80 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Moore v. Aysen 69 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
531 , , where the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Fournet, said: “In the case of Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Gibbs v. Pizzolato 67 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Rylander v. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Caddo Contracting Co. v. Johnson 64 So. 2d 177 La. 1953
Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Troquille v. Lacaze's Estate 63 So. 2d 139 La. 1953
■contrary to that approved by this court in .the cases of Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, *615 Inc., , 149 So; 434; Calhoon v. Meridian Lumber Co., Inc., 180 La.
Schum v. Marion T. Fannaly, Inc. 59 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Rylander v. T. Smith & Sons [Son], Inc., , 149 So.
Johnson v. W. L. Richeson & Sons, Inc. 53 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Rylander v. T. Smith & Sons, , 149 So.
Wright v. National Surety Corp. 52 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Counsel for plaintiff points to the cases of Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Jarrell v. Travelers Ins. Co. 50 So. 2d 22 La. 1950
In the case of Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Maple v. American Sugar Refining Co. 39 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Moffett v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. 30 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
In Rylander v. T. Smith Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Anderson v. H. H. Trucking Co. 23 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Rylander v. T. Smith Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Walls v. Solvay Process Co. 21 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Rylander v. Smith Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Thornton v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. 21 So. 2d 46 La. 1944
Rylander v. [T.] Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Archibald v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. 20 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
Mertz v. Von Schlemmer 13 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
In advancing this argument, counsel concede that it has been well-settled in this State, , 149 So.
Collins v. Spielman 8 So. 2d 608 La. 1942
Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, , 149 So.
Hayes v. Barras 6 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
In support of his contention, , 149 So.
Carlino v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 199 So. 228 La. 1940
In Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Carpenter v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. 194 So. 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
The lower court and this court both rejected plaintiff’s contention holding that as compensation insurance is essentially insurance against loss or diminution of earning capacity (Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Carlino v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 198 So. 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Rylander v. Smith & Son, [717], 149 So.
Ulmer v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. 190 So. 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Ricks v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. 189 So. 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
which the number o-f days per week would be limited beyond the six day week which is held to be the usual and normal working week by the Supreme Court in the cases of Rylander v. T. Smith & Son Inc., , 149 So.
Von Herr v. American Employers' Ins. Co. 187 So. 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, , 149 So.
Strickland v. Walker-Johnson Lumber Co. 188 So. 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
He is entitled to 65% of his weekly wages, based upon the wage of $1.75 per day, for a six-day week, Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, , 149 So.
Duos v. Gravier & Harper 185 So. 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
The only part of the contract of employment definitely shown is the wage of twenty-five cents per hour, and, under this situation, we believe the normal week of eight hours per day and six days per week must be used in calculating the weekly wage, under the authority of Rylander v. Smith & Son, , 149 So.
Mayo v. Dennis Sheen Transfer, Inc. 180 So. 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
This proposition has been fully *165 answered by the Supreme Court in Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, , 149 So.
Ledoux v. Fleming 175 So. 747 La. 1937
This computation is made in accordance with the doctrine laid down in *63 the case of Rylander v. Smith & Son, , 149 So.
Bolden v. Plant Line Stevedoring Co. 169 So. 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
283 , and of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Ogea v. W. Horace Williams Co. 165 So. 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Sesnan v. Cotton Trade Warehouse, Inc. 165 So. 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
In the case of Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, , 149 So.
Barr v. United Gas Public Service Co. 162 So. 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
283, 289 , which was quoted from with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of Rylander v. T. Smith & Sons, Inc., , 149 So.
Benoit v. American Mut. Liability Ins. 162 So. 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
*607 We had averaged the time per day and pex week in several cases for the purpose of fixing compensation where the injured party, due to inability on his part to get full time employment, had only been given work for part of a week; but since the decision of the Supreme Court in Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, , 149 So.
Reynolds v. Forcum-James Co. 162 So. 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co. 159 So. 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , 149 So.
Jones v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. 157 So. 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
This is the rule to govern in such a case, and is clearly laid down in the most recent decision of the Supreme Court, Rylander v. Smith & Son, , 149 So.
Calhoon v. Meridian Lumber Co. 156 So. 412 La. 1934
“In the latest and controlling case on this subject, that of Rylander v. T. Smith & Sons, , 149 So.