Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Archibald v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 11 So. 2d 492.

20 citing documents.

Latashia v. Perez, Both Individually and on Behalf of Unborn Child of Travis Chiokai (Deceased) v. Irby Construction … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
Assurance Corp., (1942).
Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co. 354 So. 2d 1031 La. 1978
Corp., , ; Malone, cited above, Section 304.
Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co. 346 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
*818 The Louisiana Supreme Court has given a broad interpretation to the requirement that the claimant be "a member of the family of the deceased employee" , (1942), the court allowed a father-in-law, mother-in-law, and two sisters-in-law of the decedent to recover.
McDermott v. Funel 247 So. 2d 567 La. 1971
Corp., , ; Malone, Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation Law, Section 304 (1951).
Stokes v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 242 So. 2d 567 La. 1970
Corporation, , (1942), however, this court recognized the socioeconomic purpose of the statute under consideration, the obligation to liberally construe it, and the proposition that the Legislature intended to allow compensation to those who were dependent upon the employee for support.
Turner v. Consolidated Underwriters 170 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Corporation, , (1942), that a person, to be a member of the family of a deceased within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act need not be a blood relative nor bear to him the relationship of husband or widow or lineal descendant or ascendant, brother, sister, or child.
Thebault v. City of New Orleans 136 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
The decision in Archibald v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, , 11 So.
Flanagan v. A L & W Moore Trucking Contractors 100 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Corp., Ltd., , ; Hamilton v. Consolidated Underwriters, La.App., .
Shaw v. Swift & Co. 74 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Green v. Heard Motor Co. 71 So. 2d 849 La. 1954
Corporation, , ; and Dyer v. Rapides Lumber Co., 154 La.
Coal Operators Cas. Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 66 So. 2d 852 La. 1953
921 , ; Archibald v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp., , .
Caddo Contracting Co. v. Johnson 54 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
v. Louisiana, Arkansas & Texas Transportation Co., , this Court held that the existence of a child entitled to -and being paid compensation, did not bar the father and mother from claiming compensation, and cited Archibald v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, , , and the Hamilton case, supra.
Patin v. T. L. James & Co. 51 So. 2d 586 La. 1951
See Archibald et al. v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., et al., , and Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Manufacturing Company, 208 La.
Patin v. T. L. James Co. 42 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
The Court appears to have been influenced to a , , 493, a case wherein it was held that under the general provisions of the Employers' Liability Act the dependent father-in-law, mother-in-law, and two sisters-in-law, constituting the family of a deceased workman, could recover compensation on account of his death.
Williams v. Jahncke Service 38 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
which to any extent at all indicates or intimates that legitimacy or illegitimacy in any of the various grades, if there be grades of illegitimacy, may be taken into consideration in determining whether a person may claim as a member of the family.
McDonald v. Louisiana, Arkansas Texas Transp. Co. 28 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
*Page 504 , , and the opinion of this Court in Hamilton v. Consolidated Underwriters, La.
Moore v. Capitol Glass Supply Co. 25 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
In two recent cases the Supreme Court has construed the word "family" as used in the quoted part of the section, , , that in the absence of blood relatives, a mother-in-law, a father-in-law and sisters-in-law *Page 250 who lived with the deceased employee prior to his death and were actually dependent upon him were members of his family and were entitled to recover compensation from his employer's insurance carrier
Lunkin v. Triangle Farms 24 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
The defendant contends that under the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Archibald et al. v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., et al., , , and the case of Thompson v. Vestal Lumber Mfg.
Archibald v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. 20 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
Hamilton v. Consolidated Underwriters 21 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944