DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Collins v. Spielman, 8 So. 2d 608.

21 citing documents.

  • GNB, Inc. v. Jones 699 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    [8] , (1942); Vaughan v. Ins.
  • Hodges v. Sentry Ins. Co. 492 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    (1942); Ardoin v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins.
  • Bananno v. EMPLOYERS MUT. LIAB. INS. CO. OF WISCONSIN 299 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    (1942), and Ardoin v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins.
  • Brasher v. Chenille, Inc. 251 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    For instance, our workmen’s compensation act expressly provides that it shall be liberally construed to effect its purpose and the courts consistently construed the word “wages” to include room, board, lodging and similar benefits, , .
  • St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Richard 208 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
  • Washington v. Harvey 164 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    480 , ; , ; Robinson v. Atkinson, 198 La.
  • Finn v. EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION 141 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    480 , ; , ; Troquille v. Lacaze's Estate, La.App.
  • Davis v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins. 128 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    238 , ; , ; Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., 219 La.
  • Costanzo v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 124 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
    This doctrine was applied to a farm laborer in Collins v. Spielman, 1942, , .
  • Allen v. Travelers Insurance Co. 124 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    238 , ; that because of the operation of an automobile in the delivery of milk and of a tractor in farming operations, a farm-dairy becomes a hazardous business, , ; and that the insurance business can be characterized as hazardous if it entails the operation of automobiles as a necessary incident thereof, Reagor v. First National Life Insurance Company, 212 La.
  • Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. 102 So. 2d 461 La. 1958
    238 , ; , ; Reagor v. First National Life Insurance Company, 212 La.
  • Fontenot v. Fontenot 100 So. 2d 477 La. 1958
  • Roy v. Guillot 84 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    See also: Collins v. Spielman, 1942, , ; Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., Inc., 1951, 219 La.
  • Rosenquist v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company 78 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    Stephens, for Use and Benefit of Stephens v. Catalano, La.App., ; Staples v. Henderson Jersey Farms, Inc., La.App., 181 So.
  • Norris v. Hargis 77 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    See also: Collins v. Spielman, 1942, , ; Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Company, Inc., 1951, 219 La.
  • Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co. 54 So. 2d 121 La. 1951
    238 , ; that because of the operation of an automobile in the delivery of milk and of a tractor in farming operations, a farm-dairy becomes a hazardous business, , ; and that the insurance business can be characterized as hazardous if it entails the operation of automobiles as a necessary incident thereof, Reagor v. First National Life Insurance Company, 212 La.
  • Robin v. Brandin 45 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
  • Prater v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York 38 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    And in this connection counsel cite, with great confidence, , , 609, as authority for the proposition that an occupation or business that ordinarily is not hazardous and is not covered by the compensation statute may be brought within that statute, if, in the regular conduct of the business, the employer uses machinery or engages in any other practices which are sp
  • Gonsoulin v. Southern Amusement Co. 32 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    816 , , , relied on by plaintiff do not serve as authority to support his claim."
  • Richardson v. American Employers' Ins. Co. 31 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    the Supreme Court had the question presented for consideration whether or not the defendant was engaged in a hazardous business within the meaning and contemplation of subsection (a), paragraph 2, of Section 1 of the Compensation Act, under the following facts: "The plaintiff was employed by the defend
  • Gallien v. Judge 28 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    816 , , relied on by plaintiff do not serve as authority to support his claim.