Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite King v. American Tank & Equipment Corp., 144 So. 283.

15 citing documents.

Homer v. Mississippi River Grain Elevator, Inc. 264 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
1st Cir. 1952); King v. American Tank & Equipment Corporation, (La.App.
Home Gas & Fuel Co. v. Mississippi Tank Co. 143 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
In King v. American Tank & Equipment Corp., La.App., , the court stated: "When a foreign corporation undertakes to transact business in a state other than that in which it is incorporated, it submits itself to the authority of the courts of such other state and is bound by the statutory provisions respecting the method of such courts obtaining jurisdiction over it."
Anderson v. H. H. Trucking Co. 23 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
App., ; Menzel v. Southern Stevedoring Co., 7 La.
Hayes v. Barras 6 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
decided by us on November 10, 1932, we had occasion to pass upon the question involved here.
Ricks v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. 189 So. 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
The employee who accepted work under the rules and regulations of these bodies was limited to the number of hours and days fixed and he co-uld not, as suggested in King v. American Tank & Equipment Corporation, La.App., , the employee in that case could, engage in some other employment for' the remaining days of the week in order to work the whole week of six days.
Rhone v. Southern Kraft Corporation 189 So. 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
App., , and Russo v. Southern Kraft Corp., La.App., 144 So.
Bolden v. Plant Line Stevedoring Co. 169 So. 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
425 , and King v. American Tank & Equipment Corporation, , and of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 177 La.
Barr v. United Gas Public Service Co. 162 So. 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
App.) , which was quoted from with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of Rylander v. T. Smith & Sons, Inc., 177 La.
Benoit v. American Mut. Liability Ins. 162 So. 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
In the Suire Case we said: “At the time the decision of the Supreme ’Court in Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., and that of the Court of Appeal in the King Case [ ] was handed down, this act of Congress * * * had not been adopted and was not the law, nor had the state agency known as the unemployment relief committee been organized.” We understood that the Rylander and King Cases were based exclusively on the provisions of the Employers’ Liability Act and dealt with injury in t
Jones v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. 157 So. 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Suire v. Union Sulphur Co. 155 So. 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Smith v. Brown Paper Mill Co., Inc. 152 So. 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
App.) ; Olinde v. Arundel Corp. (La.
Preston v. Ramoneda Bros. 152 So. 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
App.) ; Russo v. Southern Kraft Corporation (La.
Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 149 So. 434 La. 1933
Again the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, in King v. American Tank & Equipment Corp., , took the same view.
Russo v. Southern Kraft Corporation 144 So. 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
In the case of Ed L. King v. American Tank & Equipment Co., , this court, in dealing with a similar question, said: “An employee who is accidentally hurt, and whose case comes under the provisions of the Louisiana Compensation Act, is entitled to compensation based upon his daily wage, multiplied by six, the usual number of working days per week, whether he was employed f