DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Arnold v. Solvay Process Co., 20 So. 2d 407.

19 citing documents.

  • Carter v. Belle Chasse State School 451 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Lester v. Rebel Crane & Service Co. 394 So. 2d 1230 La. 1981
    (1944) this Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit for disability benefits due to prescription and distinguished the situation where there is a recognition by the parties concerned that the employee has a just claim for disability benefits and that wages paid were in lieu or in the nature of compensatio
  • Landry v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 236 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    23:1221(4), (i), , (1944) and Weber v. Kieckhefer Container Company, La.App., .
  • Mella v. Continental Emsco 189 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    99 ; , ; Walker v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., La.App., .
  • Williams v. Red Barn Chemicals, Inc. 188 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    It must be conceded, however, that there is a faint intimation in at least two of those cases—Arnold v. Solvay Process Co. [ , ], supra, and Walker v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., La.App., , that such justification may result from mere words."
  • Deen v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. 180 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Pope v. Coney 119 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    23:1209, , , Daigle v. Higgins Industries, La.App., .
  • Murray v. Royal Indemnity Co. 94 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1957
    228 ; , ; Michel v. Maryland Casualty Co., La.App., ; Walker v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., La.App., .’” We deem it advisable to mention the fact that, in his reasons for judgment, the District Judge said that if he had not maintained the plea of prescription he would have had to re
  • Scalise v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 84 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    228 ; Arnold v. Solvay Process Co., 1944, , ; Thornton v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Company, 1944, 207 *91 La.
  • Barnes v. Ed. Taussig, Inc. 78 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    228 ; , ; Michel v. Maryland Casualty Co., (La.App.)
  • Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc. 76 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    228 ; Arnold v. Solvay Process Co., 1944, , ; Thornton v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, 1944, 207 La.
  • Chauvin v. St. Mary Iron Works 55 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    the Supreme Court, in discussing a plea of prescription of one year predicated upon Section 31 of Act No. 20 of 1914 as amended, supra, stated: “ * * * Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the one year statutory limitation unless by some authorized means its running was interrupted.
  • Cradeur v. Louisiana Highway Commission 52 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    Michel v. Maryland Casualty Co., La.App., ; D’Antoni v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 213 La.
  • Abshire v. Cities Service Refining Corp. 50 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    228 ; , ; Michel v. Maryland Casualty Co., [La.App.]
  • Davis v. Brown's Velvet Dairy Products 43 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., ; , ; Richard v. Blair, La.
  • Brooks v. G. E. Johnson Lumber Co. 41 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    99 ; , and Walker v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., La.
  • Stiles v. International Paper Co. 39 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    Cases on this point were commented upon in the opinion of Justice Hamiter in the Supreme Court case of Arnold v. Solvay *Page 637 Process Company, , , in which it was observed that payments made to an employee for the performance of light services constitute a recognition by the parties that the employee had a just claim for disability benefits, and, further, that such payments interrupted the foreclosing of the employee's right to sue.
  • Michel v. Maryland Casualty Co. 33 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Stephenson v. McCook Bros. Funeral Home 27 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    Anderson v. Champagne, La.