DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Harris v. Traders General Ins. Co., 8 So. 2d 289.

17 citing documents.

  • Manning v. PFG-Caro Foods 71 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Theriot v. Bay Drilling Corp. 562 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    Co., , (1942), as follows:” “ * * The purpose of the requirement that a suit be brought by the claimant within one year after the accident under the penalty of barring his recovery is of a three fold nature; (1) to enable the employer to determine when his potential liability for an accident would cease; (2) as
  • Totty v. Dravo Corp. 413 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Co., , (1942), as follows: "* * * The purpose of the requirement that a suit be brought by the claimant within one year after the accident under the penalty of barring his recovery is of a three fold nature; (1) to enable the employer to determine when his potential liability for an accident would cease; (2) as
  • Federal Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Calsim, Inc. 340 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    Co., , ; Gilmore v. State, La.App., .
  • Ancelet v. Moreno's Air Conditioning, Inc. 331 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    In Harris v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (S. Ct.1942) it was said: "The author of the dissenting opinion filed in this case made the following appropriate comment upon the provision requiring the claimant for Workmen's Compensation to file suit on the claim within one year, viz: `* * * The purpose of the requirement that a suit be brought by th
  • Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc. 276 So. 2d 262 La. 1973
    the objects of time limitations for bringing workmen's compensation actions were discussed, and the following language approved at , 293: "`* * * The purpose of the requirement that a suit be brought by the claimant within one year after the accident under the penalty of barring his recover
  • Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc. 258 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    It has been held in Harris v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (1942) that the three-fold purpose of a statute of limitations in the workmen’s compensation law is (1) to enable the employer to determine when his potential liability for an accident would cease; (2) as a matter of public policy to prevent suits based on stale claims where the evidence might be de
  • Mella v. Continental Emsco 189 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    compensation unless the suit is filed within the prescriptive periods, subject, however, to certain causes which will suspend or interrupt the running of the prescription, such as the payment of compensation under the provisions of the act during the course of the payments, the filing of a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction as was the case in Harris v. Traders & General Insurance Co., , , where the plaintiff did everything he reasonably could do to keep his claim alive, or in a situat
  • Venterella v. Pace 180 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
  • Grand v. American General Insurance Co. 131 So. 2d 46 La. 1961
    Co., , ; Mack v. W. Horace Williams Co., et al., 200 La.
  • Banks v. Kent Piling Co. 87 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Co., , ; Jackson v. American Employers Ins.
  • Gilmore v. State 79 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    Law Review 624 at 626, in a very able note concerning Harris v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , , regarding the nature of limitations barring suit in workmen's compensation proceedings.
  • Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc. 23 So. 2d 209 La. 1945
    * * *” It was pointed out in Harris v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , , that the purpose of the requirement that a suit be brought by the claimant within one year is, (1) to enable the employer to determine when his potential liability for an accident would cease, (2) to prevent, as a matter of public policy, suits based on stale claims where the evidence might be destroye
  • Arnold v. Solvay Process Co. 20 So. 2d 407 La. 1944
  • Lunkin v. Triangle Farms 19 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
  • Arnold v. Solvay Process Co. 15 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    it for compensation unless the suit is filed within the prescriptive periods, subject, however, to certain causes which will suspend or interrupt the running of the prescription, such as the payment of compensation under the provisions of the act during the course of the payments, the filing of a suit in a , , where the plaintiff did everything he reasonably could do to keep his claim alive, or in a situation where the plaintiff is prevented from bringing his suit through no fault of his, or whe
  • Mack v. W. Horace Williams Co. 9 So. 2d 406 La. 1942
    Co., La.Sup., , handed down on April 28, 1942 (not yet reported [in State reports]).