DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., 21 So. 2d 878.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Wells 45 So. 3d 577 La. 2010
    Although “conclusive showing” is not defined, “conclusive” means “[s]hutting up a matter; shutting out all further evidence; not admitting of explanation or contradiction; putting an end to inquiry; final; irrefutable; decisive.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 362 (revised 4th ed.1968), , (1945).
  • American Home Assurance Co. v. Johnson 373 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    (1945); Lewis, supra; (La.App.
  • Deville v. Townsend Bros. Construction Company 284 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    Guillory v. Reimers-Schneider Co., La.App.
  • Jennings v. Allstate Insurance Company 273 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    445 , (1960); Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting, Co., Inc., , (1945); 32 C.J.S.
  • Sutherland v. Marsailles, Inc. 264 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    In the latter case, Justice Viosca, speaking for the Supreme Court, stated: “ ‘As Judge McBride, speaking for the Orleans Court of Appeals, in the recent case of Fourchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., , and citing Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., , , said: “ ‘ “To prove a case by a preponderance of the evidence simply means evidence must be produced which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.” “ ‘And Wigmore on Evidence,
  • Morris v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Co. 228 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    569 , ; , ; Webber v. Wofford-Brindley Lumber Company, La.App., ; Guillory v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, 244 La.
  • Dunphy v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 177 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    In reversing a lower court’s holding that the claimant had not proved his case by a preponderance of the evidence, , , 879-880: “The law is clear that the plaintiff in a compensation case bears the burden of proving his case with reasonable certainty, by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Gates v. Ashy Construction Company 171 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
  • Page v. Home Indemnity Co. 168 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Lee v. Carwile 168 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    See also: , , 880: "`By a preponderance of evidence is meant simply evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition to it.
  • Town of Slidell v. Temple 164 So. 2d 276 La. 1964
    445 , (1960) ; Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., , (1945); 32 C.J.S.
  • Andrus v. Great American Insurance Company 161 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Guillory v. Reimers-Schneider Co., La.App.
  • Hebert v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance 161 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    879-880: “The law is clear that the plaintiff * * * bears the burden of proving his case with reasonable certainty, by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Bellard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 150 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    1077, 1078 , ; Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., , ; Montgomery v. Walter Kellogg Lumber Company, Inc., et al., La.
  • Parks v. Southern Utility Co. of Shreveport 141 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    1077, 1078 , ; Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., , ; Cotton v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Scott v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co., Inc., La.App., ; Henderson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., La.App., ; Smith v. International Paper Co., La.
  • Service Fire Insurance Company v. Johnson 138 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    The Court quoted from Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., , , and said: "To prove a case by a preponderance of the evidence simply means evidence must be produced which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it."
  • Kenny v. Schuylkill Products Co. 130 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., 1945, , ; Hardin v. *699 Operating Co. et al., 1947, 212 La.
  • Porter v. Dennis Sheen Transfer, Inc. 130 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    plaintiff’s burden was clearly defined: “The law is clear that the plaintiff in a compensation case bears the burden of proving his case with reasonable certainty, by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Waters v. LL Brewton Lumber Co. 120 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    1077, 1078 , ; Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., , ; Montgomery v. Walter Kellogg Lumber Company, Inc., et al., La.App., ; Cotton v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, La.App., ; Scott v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Company, Inc., La.App., ; Henderson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, La.
  • Montgomery v. Walter Kellogg Lumber Co. 120 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    1077, 1078 , ; Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., , ; Cotton v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., La.
  • Shaw v. F. & C. Engineering Co. 120 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    In reversing a lower court’s holding that the claimant had not proved his case by a preponderance of the evidence, , , 879-880: “The law is clear that the plaintiff in a compensation case bears the burden of proving his case with reasonable certainty, by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Coltharp v. Hearin Tank Lines, Inc. 118 So. 2d 881 La. 1960
    “As Judge McBride, speaking for the Orleans Court of Appeals, in the recent case of Fourchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., , and citing Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., , , said: “ ‘To prove a case by a preponderance of the evidence simply means evidence must be produced which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.’ “And Wigmore on Evidence, Vol.
  • Succession of Thibodeaux 116 So. 2d 525 La. 1959
    Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., , .
  • Guillory v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. 110 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Company, Inc., , ; Braziel v. Pope, La.App., ; Fourchea v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., La.App., ; and Davis v. Reynolds, La.App., .
  • Thomas v. Crown-Zellerbach Corporation 101 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    Guillory v. Reimers-Schneider Co., La.App.
  • Guillory v. Reimers-Schneider Company 94 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    The burden is upon the employer to prove the defense that the employee's willful failure to cooperate with medical treatment, or his willful misconduct, is the cause of the continued disability, , , and the proof to sustain this defense must be "clear, convincing and conclusive," Williams v. Texsun Supply Corporation, La.App.
  • Fourchea v. Maloney Trucking and Storage 88 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., , .
  • Roberts v. MS Carroll Co. 68 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
    2d 718 ; White v. Delta Shipbuilding Co., Inc., La.App., ; Whitfield v. E. J. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc., La.App., ; Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., Inc., , ; McCray v. Yarbrough, La.App., ; Brown v. R. P. Farnsworth & Co., La.App., ; Mitchell v. Littlejohn Transp.