DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Nesmith v. Reich Bros., 14 So. 2d 767.

25 citing documents.

  • Malancon v. Ace Transportation, LLC 153 So. 3d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    1st Cir.11/9/95), ( , (1943)), “if the furnishing of equipment with which the work is done forms a considerable portion of the service for which the employee is paid, the rental value of the equipment should be deducted from the total amount paid in order to compute the *475 employee’s weekly wages.” 5 In Fontenot
  • Ravy v. Bridge Terminal Transport 883 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    (1943); France v. A & M Wood Co., (La.App.
  • Covington v. Ace Transportation, Inc. 830 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Nesmith v. Reich ┴4Bros., , (1943); (La.App.
  • Zanders v. Golden Age Home Care Center 705 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, , (1943) recognized that if the furnishing of equipment with which the work is done forms a considerable portion of the service for which the employee is paid, the rental value of the equipment should be deducted from the total amount paid in order to compute the employee's weekly wages.
  • Fontenot v. Trans Gulf, Inc. 664 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, , (1943), recognized that if the furnishing of equipment with which the work is done forms a considerable portion of the service for which the employee is paid, the rental value of the equipment should be deducted from the total amount paid in order to compute the employee's weekly wages.
  • Edwards v. Delta Timber Co. 647 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    (1943); France v. A & M Wood Co., (La.App.
  • Gorings v. Edwards 222 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    See also Nesmith vs. Reich Bros., (1943), Walker vs. Lykes Bros.-Ripley SS Co., 166 So.
  • Rogers v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 173 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    280 , ; , ; Mabry v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York et al., La.App.
  • Thompson v. Cloud 166 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    and, Malone, Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation Law (1951 ed.), Section 327.
  • Raney v. McDaniel 165 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    720 , ; , ; Laine v. Junca, 207 La.
  • Gathright v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 157 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    754 ; , ; Snear v. Eiserloh, La.App.Orl., 144 So.
  • Mabry v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 155 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
    720 , ; , ; Laine v. Junca, 207 La.
  • Hay v. Travelers Insurance Company 106 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
    280 , ; Harvey v. Caddo De Soto Cotton Oil Co., supra; , ; Babineaux v. Giblin, La.App., .
  • Webb v. Crosby Lumber & Manufacturing Co. 105 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    ount of compensation, we do not think it possible to accept as a criterion the amount which the plaintiff had earned with the use of his truck, but the evidence shows that the earnings or wages of a driver of a truck was from $2.50 to $3.00 per day, and the trial court accepted the latter as the basis of its judgment.” This case was cited with approval in the case of Nesmith v. Reich Bros., 1943, , .
  • Welch v. Newport Industries 86 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    23:1021(6), held that one who furnished manual labor to another was not deprived of the protection of the Act because he also furnished equipment, supplies, supervisory services, etc., , ; Allgood v. Loeb, La.App., , and cases therein cited.
  • Jinks v. Burton Sutton Oil Co. 44 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    48 ; Nesmith v. Reich Bros. et al., La.App., ; , ; and Pitre v. Louisiana Highway Commission, La.App., 161 So.
  • Warren v. Globe Indemnity Co. 46 So. 2d 66 La. 1950
    720 , ; , and Laine v. Junca, 207 La.
  • Hanchey v. Consolidated Underwriters 43 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
  • St. Alexandre v. Texas Co. 28 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    For instance, , , 772, the Supreme Court held that there could be recovery in compensation because the employee was at the place at which the accident occurred "* * * for no other purpose than to serve his employer, * * *".
  • Allgood v. Loeb 27 So. 2d 380 La. 1946
    is not in point because an entirely different statement of facts were involved.
  • Allgood v. Loeb 22 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    769, the Supreme Court had before it for consideration the question of whether a man employed to haul limestone in his trucks for the defendant, for which he was paid 70¢ per cubic yard, where he furnished his own truck and bought his own gas and oil, was an independent contractor or an employee.
  • Murphy v. Tremont Lumber Co. 22 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    87 ; Nesmith v. Reich Bros., et al., , ; Litton v. Natchitoches Oil Mill, Inc. et al., La.
  • Laine v. Junca 21 So. 2d 150 La. 1945
  • Buettner v. Polar Bar Ice Cream Co. 17 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
  • Ridgdell v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board 17 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944