Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Atchison v. May, 10 So. 2d 785.

56 citing documents.

Leontine Moran Versus Rouse's Enterprises, LLC and Great American Alliance Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
3/17/00), ( So.2d 785, 788 (1942)).
Central Louisiana Ambulatory Surgical Center, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. 46 So. 3d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center,(edith Hilborn) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 785, 788 (La.1942).
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center, (Vicky Lacour) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 785, 788 (La.1942).
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center, (David Nardin) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 785, 788 (La.1942).
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center, (Bridget Huie) v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 785, 788 (La.1942).
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Travis Villemarette) v. Gilchrist Construction Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 785, 788 (La.1942).
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Tammy Tyler) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 785, 788 (La.1942).
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Patricia Harmson) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 785, 788 (La.1942).
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Dwight Tennie) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 785, 788 (La.1942).
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Carmen Lacour) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 785, 788 (La.1942).
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Forrest Robinson) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 785, 788 (La.1942).
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. 16 So. 3d 1065 La. 2009
Noonan v. City of New Orleans 972 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
(1942): The act, which is social legislation, was passed for the joint benefit of labor and management in order to insure that employees who have become disabled as a result of their labors in hazardous industries would have, during the period of their disability, a weekly income for the upkeep of
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. John C. Guilbeau La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
3/17/00), ( So.2d 785, 788 (1942)).
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Guilbeau 934 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
O'Regan v. Preferred Enters., Inc., 98-1602, p. 5 (La.3/17/00), ( , (1942)).
Ervin Guillory v. Interstate Hotels & Resorts La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
3 One critical tradeoff in the workers’ compensation scheme is that while the employer “was deprived of the defenses afforded to him by the general law and he was assured that, in case any of his employees were injured, they would be entitled to no more than the amount stipulated in the statute as compensation during the period of disability.” So.2d 785.
Guillory v. Interstate Hotels & Resorts 918 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
14One critical tradeoff in the workers’ compensation scheme is that while the employer “was deprived of the defenses afforded to him by the general law and he was assured that, in case any of his employees were injured, they would be entitled to no more than the amount stipulated in the statute as compensation during the period of disability.” , .
Deshotel v. Guichard Operating Co., Inc. 916 So. 2d 72 La. 2004
(1942): The act, which is social legislation, was passed for the joint benefit of labor and management in order to insure that employees who have become disabled as a result of their labors in hazardous industries would have, during the period of their disability, a weekly income for the upkeep of
Apeck Construction, Inc. v. Foster M. Bowers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
3/17/00), ( So.2d 785, 788 (1942)).
Apeck Const., Inc. v. Bowers 862 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
O'Regan v. Preferred Enters., Inc., 98-1602, p. 5 (La.3/17/00), ( , (1942)).
Anthony Deshotel v. Guichard Operating Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Deshotel v. Guichard Operating Co., Inc. 861 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist. 836 So. 2d 14 La. 2003
O'Regan, 758 So.2d at 128 ( , (1942)).
O'REGAN v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc. 758 So. 2d 124 La. 2000
Overview of the Workers' Compensation Act In interpreting the statute at issue, , (1942), wherein Justice McCaleb, commenting on the Workers' Compensation Act, stated: The act, which is social legislation, was passed for the joint benefit of labor and management in order to insure that employees who became disabled as a result of their labors in hazardous industries would have
O'REGAN v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc. 737 So. 2d 31 La. 1999
Roberts, 634 So.2d at 344 ; , (1942); Puchner v. Employers' Liab.
Jowers v. LIBERTY CONST. CO. 740 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Adams v. JE Merit Const., Inc. 712 So. 2d 88 La. 1998
Clark v. Mrs. Fields Cookies 707 So. 2d 17 La. 1998
(1942), he reasoned that the purpose of the social legislation was to insure that disabled employees have an income for their upkeep and maintenance during their disability.
Ellis v. Normal Life of Louisiana 638 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
(1942), the court denied plaintiffs a cause of action in tort against their deceased brother's employer because the deceased employee's injury was covered by the workers compensation act.
Raney v. Walter O. Moss Regional Hosp. 629 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
(1942), (plaintiffs had no right to recover under the compensation law because they were not dependent on the deceased employee); (La.App.
U.S. Fire Insurance Co. v. State, Worker's Compensation Second Injury Board 590 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Crawford v. Midwest Steel Co., Inc. 517 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
which held: The act, which is social legislation, was passed for the joint benefit of labor and management in order to insure that employees who become disabled as a result of their labors in hazardous industries would have, during the period of their disability, a weekly income for the upkeep of themse
Swilley v. Sun Oil Co. 506 So. 2d 1364 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
(1942); Branch v. Aetna Cas.
Theriot v. Damson Drilling Corp. 471 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Senac v. Sandefer 418 So. 2d 543 La. 1982
(1942), as social legislation passed for the joint benefit of labor and management.
Johnson v. Alexander 406 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
381 (La.1919); , (1942); (La.App.
Physicians & Surgeons Hospital v. Leone 399 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
656 (1940); , (1942); Colorado v. Johnson Iron Works, 146 La.
Franklin v. Haughton Timber Co. 377 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Bazley v. Tortorich 380 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
The Louisiana Supreme Court, in explaining generally the Workmen's Compensation Statute, , (1942): "* * * The act, which is social legislation, was passed for the joint benefit of labor and management in order to insure that employees who became disabled as a result of their labors in hazardous industries would have, during the period of their disability, a weekly income for the upkeep o
Braxton v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 379 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Flynn v. Devore 373 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
The statute in clear and unmistakable terms makes the rights and remedies granted by the workmen's compensation act to an injured employee or his dependents, the exclusive remedy of such employee, his personal representatives, dependents, or relations, against his employer, or any principal or any director, stockholder, , , 787: "The intention of the Legislature is demonstrated by the clear language employed by it in the above-quoted sections of the act and this court has experienced but little
Shepard v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., Inc. 369 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Perez v. Continental Cas. Co. 367 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
[2] , (1942), where our Supreme Court stated as follows: ".
Gothreaux v. Gulf Oxygen Company, Inc. 289 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Our jurisprudence under this statute has consistently held that whenever the compensation act is applicable, the employee cannot pursue any remedy for damages against his employer under Article 2315 of the Civil Code or otherwise, , (1942); (La.App.
Canter v. Koehring Company 283 So. 2d 716 La. 1973
(1942); Mayer, Workmen's Compensation Law in Louisiana, p. 1 (1937).
Holmes v. Holmes 270 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
656 (1940) ; , (1942); Colorado v. Johnson Iron Works, 146 La.
Boudreaux v. Falco 215 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Atchinson [Atchison] vs. May, , , McLaughlin vs. Boykin, (La.
Samson v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. 205 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
which involved a claim by a brother and sister for damages ex delicto because of the death of their brother killed during the course of his employment at defendant's sawmill.
LaCoste v. J. Ray McDermott & Co. 193 So. 2d 779 La. 1967
2 It has been many times said that a workmen’s compensation law is social legislation enacted for the joint benefit of labor and management in order to insure that employees who become disabled as the result of their labors in hazardous industries will be able to secure “* * * during the period of their disability, a weekly income for the upkeep of themselves and their families.” , .