DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Thornton v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 21 So. 2d 46.

33 citing documents.

  • Chevalier v. Bossier 663 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    DuPont De Nemours & Co., , ; Richard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, La.App., ; Williams v. Red Barn Chemicals, Inc., La.App., ; 3 Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, s 78.45, pp. 107-108.
  • Krieg v. Krieg Bros. Terrazzo Co., Inc. 645 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Du Pont de Nemours & Co., , (1944).
  • Price v. Gas & Well Operating Service 267 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    See Thornton v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., , ; Richard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, La.App., ; Williams v. Red Barn Chemicals, Inc., La.App., ; 3 Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 78.45, pp. 107-108.” The Dupaquier case is particularly applicable here since under its facts there was no deliberate or intention
  • Dupaquier v. City of New Orleans 257 So. 2d 385 La. 1972
    See Thornton v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., , ; Richard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, La.App., ; Williams v. Red Barn Chemicals, Inc., La.App., ; 3 Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 78.45, pp. 107-108.
  • Gulling v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company 228 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    In Thornton v. [E. I.] DuPont [de Nemours & Co.], , , the Supreme Court said: `An employer could not defeat a just claim of an injured employee for workmen's compensation by keeping his name on the payroll at regular wages for a period exceeding a year, because the employee could interrupt the running of prescription by bringing suit on his claim for work
  • Distinguished Richard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 188 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    This same idea was expressed by our Supreme Court in Thornton v. E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., , (1945).
  • Deen v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. 180 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Thornton v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., , ; D’Antoni v. Employers’ Liability Assur.
  • Fruge v. Hub City Iron Works, Inc. 131 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
  • Moore v. Bridges & Bell 115 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    In Thornton v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., , it was stated that the aforesaid section “has reference to cases only where the employer pays the compensation due to an injured employee, or to his dependents in the case of a fatal injury.” It was held, therefore, that where a petition of an injured employee alleged that the employee had been paid
  • Duke v. Remington Rand, Inc. 111 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    And, in Thornton v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., supra ( , ), the court held that an allegation that the employee was not being paid compensation substantially complied with the provisions of the section, even though it was not specifically charged that the employer had refused to pay.” Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable inasmuch as “an allegation that the
  • Duplechien v. States Exploration Company 94 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    67 , , Thornton v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., , .
  • Murray v. Royal Indemnity Co. 94 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1957
    Thornton v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., , ; D’Antoni v. Employers’ Liability Assur.
  • Scalise v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 84 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    We quote from this opinion as follows: "That the payment of wages as distinguished from compensation or payments in lieu of compensation will not interrupt the running of prescription in compensation cases now appears to be well settled as appears from the following language taken from Thornton v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., (Supreme Court) , , [52]: "`There is no reason why the payment of wages should prevent the running or prescription against a claim for workmen's compensation * * * it
  • Barnes v. Ed. Taussig, Inc. 78 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    Thornton v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., , ; D’Antoni v. Employers’ Liability Assur.
  • Myers v. Jahncke Service 76 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    897 , ; Thornton v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., , ; Brown v. Continental Oil Co., La.App., ; Vega v. Higgins Industries, Inc., La.App., ; Annen v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, La.App., ; D'Antoni v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp., Ltd., La.App., (which was later destined to be reviewed by the Su
  • Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc. 76 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    8 , ; Thornton v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, 1944, , ; Michel v. Maryland Casualty Co., La.App., 1947-1948, 33 .
  • Fontenot v. Cox 68 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    The Supreme Court, in its decision of Thornton v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, , , said: "Subsection 1(B) of Section 18, therefore, does not justify the dismissal of this suit on the face of the plaintiff's petition, because he does allege `that he has been paid no compensation whatever by the employer since the date of the accident,' and he repeats that the employer has not `pai
  • Cradeur v. Louisiana Highway Commission 52 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    The trend reflected there was stopped, however, when the Supreme Court reversed the Thornton case (on the plea of prematurity, which was the only question involved there) , , at which time Chief Justice O’Niell commented on the Carpenter case and, after quoting, with other material, the same paragraph quoted above, said: “An employer could not defeat a just claim of an injured employee * * * by keeping his name on the payroll at regular wages for a period exceedin
  • Abshire v. Cities Service Refining Corp. 50 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    Thornton v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., , ; D'Antoni v. Employers' Liability Assur.
  • Goodman v. Hillyer, Deutsch, Edwards, Inc. 49 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1950
    Chief Justice O'Niell has provided the Bench and Bar with a like opinion in Thornton v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, , .
  • Davis v. Brown's Velvet Dairy Products 43 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., ; , ; Stephenson v. McCook Bros. Funeral Home, Inc., La.
  • Hammett v. Cities Service Refining Corp. 43 So. 2d 596 La. 1949
    The treasurer himself testified that the addition of the sentence was “a protective measure on my part.” In the case of Thornton v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., , , this Court had occasion to comment on a similar paragraph contained in a letter from the employer to the employee, which read as follows: “Our placing you on workmen’s compensation is not to be construed as an admission on the part of the du Pont Company that you are permanently and totally disable
  • D'Antoni v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. 34 So. 2d 378 La. 1948
    228 , and Thornton v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , .
  • Thomas v. Oxendine 33 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    The meaning of the words "the maximum per centum of wages to which petitioner is entitled under the provisions of this act," , , 50.
  • Kinder v. Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal Dist. 31 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    Again the Supreme Court in no uncertain language, , , loc.
  • Lanoue v. Century Indemnity Co. 30 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    Learned counsel for plaintiff seem to hang their hope on a , , 50, to the following effect: "We had decided in Daniels v. Shreveport Producing Refining Corp., 151 La.
  • Daigle v. Higgins Industries 29 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Overruled Rigsby v. John W. Clark Lumber Co. 28 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
  • D'Antoni v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation 28 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    228 , , , contending that these decisions grant him the right to have his claim adjudicated regardless of the fact that no compensation is actually presently due at the time of the filing of the suit.
  • Annen v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 28 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    228 ; , ; Holliday v. Martin Veneer Co., La.
  • D'Antoni v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation 28 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    228 , , , is applicable to this case, and permits the petitioner to institute and to maintain this suit in order to have his rights legally adjudicated without any further action or demand upon petitioner's part."
  • Brandon v. W. Horace Williams Co. 22 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    228 , , , decided by the Supreme Court, are decisive of the question involved in this case.
  • Butzman v. Delta Shipbuilding Co. 21 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    See, also, Holliday v. Martin Veneer Co., La., , and Thornton v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours Co., La., .