Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brister v. Wray Dickinson Co., 164 So. 415.

27 citing documents.

Nepveaux v. Fitzgerald 480 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
1900); Brister v. Wray Dickinson Co., Inc., , 164 So.
Harris v. Guardian Funds, Inc. 425 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Lester v. Rebel Crane & Service Co. 394 So. 2d 1230 La. 1981
Pounds v. Schori 377 So. 2d 1195 La. 1979
899 (La.1900); Brister v. Wray Dickinson Co., Inc., , 164 So.
Blanchard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 280 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc. 276 So. 2d 262 La. 1973
Orleans Parish School Board v. Pittman Construction Co. 260 So. 2d 661 La. 1972
Brister v. WrayDickinson Co., Inc., , 164 So.
Ancor v. Belden Concrete Products, Inc. 256 So. 2d 122 La. 1971
328 , (1953); Brister v. Wray Dickinson Co., Inc., , 164 So.
Zeringue v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 248 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
Jackson v. Hanna 206 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
Seliga v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. 174 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
The exception is based on a prescription or peremption provision (Brister v. Wray Dickinson Co., La.App., , 164 So.
Watkins v. May Bros. Inc. 147 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
In support of this argument defendant cites Brister v. Wray Dickinson Company, Inc., , 164 So.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Brown 115 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1959
In Brister v. Wray Dickinson Co., Inc., , 164 So.
Scalise v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 84 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Bigham v. Swift & Co. 81 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Gilmore v. State 79 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
While some compensation cases denote the limitations as one of peremption rather than prescription, Brister v. Wray Dickinson & Company, , 164 So.
Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc. 76 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Succession of Pizzillo 65 So. 2d 783 La. 1953
Morgan v. Rust Engineering Co. 52 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Brister v. Wray *90 Dickinson Co., , 164 So.
Harris v. Traders General Ins. Co. 8 So. 2d 289 La. 1942
In support of its holding, the Court of Appeal relied upon the decision of this Court in Brister v. Wray Dickinson Co., Inc., , 164 So.
Harris v. Traders General Ins. Co. 4 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
However, we feel that this question has been finally put to rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brister v. Wray Dickinson Co., Inc., , 164 So.
Mitchell v. Sklar 196 So. 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
'To support this position the recent case of Brister v. Wray Dickinson Co., Inc., , 164 So.
Pitts v. M. W. Kellogg Co. 186 So. 389 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
In the case of Reiner v. Maryland Casualty Company, supra, we further held that the prescription of one year as prescribed by the compensation statute would begin to run only from the date of the last compensation-payment, and in that case we also differentiated the case of Brister v. Wray Dickinson Co., Inc., et al., , 164 So.
Reiner v. Maryland Casualty Co. 185 So. 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
payment is justified under the facts shall be determined by the Court before proceeding with the hearing of the other issues involved.” Counsel for plaintiff contends that the payments referred to in subsection (B) are payments which have been the subject of a definite agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, , 164 So.
Carpenter v. Cox 186 So. 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
430 , and by the Supreme Court in the same case reported in , 164 So.
Heard v. Receivers of Parker Gravel Co. 194 So. 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
430 , and by the Supreme Court on certio-rari to this court, , 164 So.
Smith v. Monroe Grocery Co. 171 So. 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
430 ; Brister v. Wray Dickinson Co., Inc., , 164 So.