DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Haynes v. Loffland Bros. Co., 40 So. 2d 243.

21 citing documents.

  • Richards v. ST. BERNARD PARISH GOVERNMENT 25 So. 3d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    (1949); where it was observed: "the courts have consistently held that both relationship and con-tribuüon to support at the time of the injury and death must be proved in all cases where dependency is not conclusively presumed.” 2 .
  • Karen Edwards v. Transwestern Publishing, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    deceased spouse at the time of the injury or death, or was then actually dependent upon the deceased spouse for support.” The jurisprudence interpreting Section 1255 makes it clear that a spouse living with the deceased at the time of death is conclusively presumed to be “wholly and actually dependent on the deceased for support.” (1949), where the court observed: “the courts have consistently held that both relationship and contribution to support at the time of injury and death must be proved
  • McClure v. City of Pineville 944 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    (1949), where the court observed: "the courts have consistently held that both relationship and contribution to support at the time of the injury and death must be proved in all cases where dependency is not conclusively presumed."
  • Howard McClure v. City of Pineville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    e or she was living with the deceased spouse at the time of the injury or death, or was then actually dependent upon the deceased spouse for support.” The jurisprudence interpreting Section 1255 makes it clear that a spouse living with the deceased at the time of death is conclusively presumed to be “wholly and actually dependent on the deceased for support.” (1949), where the court observed: “the courts have consistently held that both relationship and contribution to support at the time of the
  • O'REGAN v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc. 737 So. 2d 31 La. 1999
  • Dean v. K-Mart Corp. 720 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • Lathrop v. Hercules Transportation 666 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    (1949); Lumbermen’s (La.App.
  • Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance v. Teague 521 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Orl.1948), affirmed, , (1948); Griffitts v. Tiger Well Service, Inc., (La.App.
  • Perez v. Continental Cas. Co. 367 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    * * * * * * " , (1949), the amount of compensation, to whom it is due, and the conditions under which it may be demanded address themselves to the law-making body of the state."
  • Fidelity and Cas. Co. of New York v. Masters 335 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    (1949); Griffitts v. Tiger Well Service, Inc., (La.App.
  • Ancor v. Belden Concrete Products, Inc. 256 So. 2d 122 La. 1971
    (1949), the amount of compensation, to whom it is due, and the conditions under which it may be demanded address themselves to the law-making body of the state.
  • Coleman v. Lone Star Packing Co. 231 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    23:1231, 23:1254-55; Haynes v. Loff-land Bros. Co., La.App., ; , ; Moy v. Schuylkill Products, 209 La.
  • Griffitts v. Tiger Well Service, Inc. 226 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    (1949), and citations therein.
  • Turner v. Consolidated Underwriters 170 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    The burden to establish entitlement to compensation of those not conclusively presumed to be dependent rests upon such "other dependents.” , (1949); Thompson v. Vestal Lumber & Mfg.
  • Williams v. Stegman 154 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    23:1231; 23:1251-55; , ; Moy v. Schuylkill Products Co., 209 La.
  • Venable v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 142 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    23:1231; , ; Farley v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., 228 La.
  • Hooper v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance 140 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    83 , (1944); Sandidge v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company et al., La.App., (1st Cir.1947); Haynes v. Loffland Bros. Company, et al., , (1949); and Lajaunie v. Rex Ice Cream Company et al., La.App., (1st Cir.1952).
  • Fourcade v. Ryan Stevedoring Co. 117 So. 2d 587 La. 1960
    23:1231, 23:1254 — 55; Haynes v. Loffland Bros. Co., La.App., ; , ; Moy v. Schuylkill Products, 209 La.
  • Hudson v. Central Culvert Corp. 108 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    A discussion of the jurisprudence leading up to the adoption of Act 85 of 1926 and its after effect is found in Haynes v. Loffland Bros. Co., 1949, , .
  • Fourcade v. Ryan Stevedoring Co. 107 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    the Supreme Court said: “ * * * one not conclusively presumed to be dependent upon the earnings of the deceased employee for support * * * must not only prove he is or they are legal dependents of the deceased but also that the deceased employee was actually contributing to their support at the t
  • Jenkins v. Pemberton 87 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    782 , ; Haynes v. Loffland Bros. Co., La.App., , affirmed by Supreme Court, , .