Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 179 So. 6.

70 citing documents.

Futrell v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 276 So. 2d 271 La. 1973
See also Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Williams v. Hudson East 261 So. 2d 629 La. 1972
Thus, as we held in an early case, “ ‘Competency’, accompanied by active pain, amounts to disability.” Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Jackson v. Phoenix Insurance Co. 252 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
438 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Flowers v. EM Toussel Oil Co. 190 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
161 , ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Collins v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance 138 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
1091 , ; Carlino v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 196 La.
Aymonde v. State National Life Insurance Company 138 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
"In Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Braswell v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 135 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
9 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Costanzo v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 124 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
438 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Sykes v. Stout Drilling Co. 124 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
9 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Daniel v. Transport Insurance Co. 119 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
9 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Powell v. Travelers Insurance Company 117 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
228 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Viator v. Hub City Contractors, Inc. 116 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
9 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Trahan v. Louisiana State Rice Milling Company 100 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
1091 , , the Supreme Court, in quoting from Pete v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, La.App., 171 So.
Reed v. Calcasieu Paper Company 98 So. 2d 175 La. 1957
9 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Chase v. Pointe Coupee Parish School Board 89 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
The present case is similar in many respects to Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Williams v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Company 87 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
9 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Thompson v. Kaiser Metal Products, Inc. 81 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
.For it is of course well settled that a claimant is disabled if he can only with pain and suffering perform the duties of the employment in which engaged at the time of the accident; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Reed v. Calcasieu Paper Co. 80 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1955
Henderson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company 80 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
It has been said by the Supreme Court in Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Coon v. Germany Iron Works 81 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Zito v. Standard Accident Insurance Co. 76 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
1091 , ; Vautrot v. Maryland Casualty Co., La.App., ; Hibbard v. Blane, La.App., 183 So.
Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. 69 So. 2d 1 La. 1953
9 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Estilette v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 64 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Co., La.App., ; , 179 So.
Harper v. Ragus 62 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
185 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 1938, , 179 So.
Blanchard v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. 59 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
185 , concerned an injury to the left leg which was designated as being equivalent to the loss of a foot; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Saltzman v. Lone Star Cement Corp. 55 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
9, 12 , the Supreme Court said: “The disability should, we think, be deemed total to do work of any reasonable character, within the intendment of the law, whenever it appears that the employee, due to the injury, is unable to perform work of the same or similar description that he is accustomed to perform.” In Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Johnson v. W. L. Richeson & Sons, Inc. 53 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Our Supreme Court, in the case of Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Stansbury v. National Auto. & Cas. Ins. Co. 52 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Newsom v. Caldwell & McCann 51 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
185 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Morgan v. American Bitumuls Co. 47 So. 2d 739 La. 1950
163 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., et al., , 179 So.
Scott v. Hillyer, Deutsch, Edwards, Inc. 46 So. 2d 914 La. 1950
9, 12 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Cobb v. A. G. McKee & Co. 45 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
d discomfort.” “In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that he is in a legal sense totally and permanently disabled to do the work to which he was accustomed before the accident and therefore entitled to recover.” “Butzman v. Delta Shipbuilding Co., Inc., et al., [La.App.], 21 So.2d p. 80; Vega v. Higgins Industries, Inc., et al., [La.App.], ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Weber v. Kieckhefer Container Co. 45 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
9 ; Custer v. New Orleans Paper Box Factory, supra; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., et al., , 179 So.
Willet v. American Automobile Ins. Co. 42 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
9 , and Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Boling v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation 42 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
9 , and Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Donnell v. Gray 41 So. 2d 66 La. 1949
Article VII, Section 11 of the Constitution; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Crawford v. Maryland Casualty Co. 39 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
1091 , ; Yarbough v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.
Hughes v. Enloe 38 So. 2d 225 La. 1948
185 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., et al., , 179 So.
Bailey v. Maryland Casualty Co. 34 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
App., ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Gilmore v. George W. Garig Transfer 33 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Anderson v. H. H. Machine Shop 32 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
1091 , ; Jacobson v. Maryland Cas.
Richardson v. American Employers' Ins. Co. 32 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
App., ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Richardson v. American Employers' Ins. Co. 31 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
App., ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Boulanger v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 31 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
9 ; Custer v. New Orleans Paper Box Factory, supra; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., et al., , 179 So.
De Kerlegand v. Car General Ins. Corporation 30 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
9 ; Custer v. N. O. Paper Box Factory, supra; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., et al., , 179 So.
Jacobson v. Maryland Casualty Co. 30 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Hingle v. Maryland Casualty Co. 30 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Washington v. Independent Ice & Cold Storage Co. 30 So. 2d 758 La. 1947
185 ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.
Zito v. Eagle Asbestos Packing Co. 30 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
The Supreme Court held in the case of Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., et al., , 179 So.
Rigsby v. John W. Clark Lumber Co. 28 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
In the case of Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., , 179 So.