Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Mfg. Co., 22 So. 2d 842.

33 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
The supreme court reiterated this broad interpretation in Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Manufacturing Co., (1944) (on rehearing) (second alteration in original), in which the supreme court held that the term “legal dependent”: [Djoes not mean legitimate—as distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate relations of the deceased employee.
Heyse v. Ernest Baxley Logging, Inc. 712 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Co., , (1944); Kindle v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., 792 F.2d 507 (5th Cir.1986).
Winn v. Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co. 522 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Co., , (1945), (Orl.App.1951).
Castle v. Prudhomme Tank Truck Line, Inc. 417 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Mfg Co., , (1945).
Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co. 354 So. 2d 1031 La. 1978
Co., , (1944); Archibald v. Employers' Liability Assur.
Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co. 346 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
In Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Manufacturing Co., , (1944) the court in allowing workmen's compensation benefits to the children, said that a woman and a deceased employee who had never married but had lived together with their children constituted his family.
Vallot v. ALL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY 302 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Warren v. Richard 296 So. 2d 813 La. 1974
203 & 2315; Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Manufacturing Co., , (1945); Green v. New Orleans, S. & G.I.R.
McDermott v. Funel 247 So. 2d 567 La. 1971
Co., , (1944); Archibald v. Employers’ Liability Assur.
Stokes v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 242 So. 2d 567 La. 1970
Co., , (1945) on rehearing and without dissent this court held that although unacknowledged illegitimate children were not “children” as defined by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, they were “legal dependents” who were members of the family of the employee under the act and entitled to present a claim for compe
McDermott v. Funel 235 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Co., , , the right of ille-gitimates to recover death benefits was established if actual dependency is proved.
Stokes v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 232 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Co., , ; Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York v. Ivory, La.App., , and Jenkins v. Pemberton, La.App., , such persons were entitled to compensation benefits only to the extent legitimate issue failed to exhaust maximum benefits payable.
Turner v. Consolidated Underwriters 170 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Gonzales v. Succession of Medica 141 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
(1944) ; Goodwin v. El Dorado Baking Company et al., La.App., (2d Cir.1947); Harris v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company of Chicago, Illinois et al., La.App., (1st Cir.1950).
Hooper v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance 140 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Hamilton v. Consolidated Underwriters, La.App., (2d Cir.1944); Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Manufacturing Company, , (1944); Sandidge v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company et al., La.App., (1st Cir.1947); Haynes v. Loffland Bros. Company, et al., 215 La.
Williams v. American Employers Insurance Company 110 So. 2d 541 La. 1959
s here, as she did in the district court and in the Court of Appeal, that recovery on behalf of her son is authorized because: (1) Sherman Williams is a posthumous child within the contemplation of LRS 23:1021a person conclusively presumed to be a dependent of the employee, and (2) the dependent *543 , , is applicable to her son, he having been in utero at the time of the accident and death (which occurred while the state of concubinage existed) and hence was living with and actually dependent
Williams v. American Employers Insurance 103 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Jenkins v. Pemberton 87 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Cheeks v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 87 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Co., , , the Supreme Court disposed of the correlative of this question as follows: “The ruling of the district court and of the Court of Appeal that plaintiff has no cause or right of action under Article 2315 of the Civil Code for damages resulting from the death of the father of her children, even thou
Board of Com'rs v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS EX REL. PUBLIC BELT R. COMMISSION 65 So. 2d 313 La. 1953
Succession of Wesley 64 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
in the case of Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Manufacturing Co., , , a workmen’s compensation case, Mr. Chief Justice O’Niell (on rehearing), had this to say: “In the instant case the defendant relies in some measure upon article 238 of the Civil Code, which provides: ‘Illegitimate children, generally speaking, belong to no family, and have no relations; according
Caddo Contracting Co. v. Johnson 64 So. 2d 177 La. 1953
See Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Manufacturing Co., , .
Board of Com'rs v. Public Belt R. Commission 58 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Manufacturing Company, , .
Williams v. Jahncke Service, Inc. 55 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1951
Co., , , is entitled to compensation as a member of his family, and the only question left for consideration is what is the amount of compensation and whether interest is due on each weekly payment commencing from the death of the employee, or whether interest is due only from the time when the claim was prese
Patin v. T. L. James & Co. 51 So. 2d 586 La. 1951
89 , and Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Manufacturing Company, , .
Strickland v. Globe Indemnity Co. 42 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Following that, the court later on, , , held that whilst the illegitimate children of a deceased employee had a right of action for workmen's compensation as being members of the deceased employee's family, they had no right of action under Article 2315 of the Civil Code.
Patin v. T. L. James Co. 42 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Co., , , wherein it was held that two illegitimate children of the decedent were members of his family, dependent upon the decedent's earnings for support, and were entitled to claim compensation.
Haynes v. Loffland Bros. Co. 40 So. 2d 243 La. 1949
Co., , ; Powell v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., et al., ; Moy et al. v. Schuylkill Products Co. et al., 209 La.
Williams v. Jahncke Service 38 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Co., , , 852, in which, on rehearing, the Supreme Court said: "* * * The other class of survivors who are entitled to compensation for an injury causing the death of an employee consists of those who were actually dependent upon his earnings and who were either members of his family or bore to him one of the s
Moore v. Capitol Glass Supply Co. 25 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
89 , , 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, , , 854, that the children who are issue of a woman and a deceased employee who had never married, and who had lived with and were dependent upon him, likewise constituted his family and sho
Lunkin v. Triangle Farms 24 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Co., , , Willie Lunkin's common-law wife and her minor child, who, it is claimed, were wholly dependent on him, would be entitled to the maximum compensation allowed under the act.
Dangerfield v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America 24 So. 2d 375 La. 1945
The very recent case of Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Manufacturing Co., , , is not decisive of it.
Powell v. Paramount-Richards Theatres 22 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
In the very recent case of Thompson v. Vestal Lumber Manufacturing Co., La.Sup., , the court, in interpreting the provisions of subsection 2 of section 8 of the Employers' Liability Act as amended, held that, where the dependent claimant is a member of the deceased employee's family and is actually dependent upon the earnings of the employee for support at the time of the accident and death, he is