Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, 155 So. 291.

30 citing documents.

  • Robinson v. Travelers Ins. Co. 619 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Also, Chism, supra; (La.App.
  • Reed v. Mullin Wood Company, Inc. 274 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
    Similar defenses have been urged to no avail in other cases, as is shown by the authorities cited and quoted hereinabove in addition to which may be cited: Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, La.App., ; Murray v. Mengel Co., La.App., ; Weaver v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., La.App., ; Books v. Keen & Woolf Oil Co., 9 La.App.
  • Ardoin v. Houston Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. 235 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
  • Satterwhite v. Zurich Insurance Company 199 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    169 ; Renfrow v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish, La.App., ; Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., Inc., La.App., 170 So.
  • Griffin v. EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY 186 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    273 ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, La.App., ; Roberson v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company, supra; also many other cases.
  • Talbot v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company 99 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    169 ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, La.App., ; Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., Inc., La.App., 170 So.
  • Roberson v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company 90 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    169 ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, La.App., ; Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., Inc., La.App., 170 So.
  • Lyons v. Swift & Company 86 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    App., ; Murray v. Mengel Co., La.App., ; Weaver v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., La.App., ; Books v. Keen & Woolf Oil Co., 9 La.App.
  • Sepulvado v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Company 75 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    169 ; Renfrow v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish, La.App., ; Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, Inc., La.App., 170 So.
  • Warning v. Royal Indemnity Co. 75 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1954
    Co., La.App., ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, La.App., ; Hall v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co., La.App., 158 So.
  • Sharp v. Esso Standard Oil Co. 72 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    450 ; Renfrew v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, La.App., ; Johnson v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Co., La.App., 161 So.
  • Warren v. Globe Indemnity Co. 43 So. 2d 234 La. 1949
    rudence, Verbo “Workmen’s Compensation” Section 578, page 931, thus: “It is generally held that installments of workmen’s compensation which were due, but unpaid, at the time of the death of the beneficiary constitute assets of his estate, in the absence of any provision to the contrary.” The Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, passed on this question in Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, La.App., , Hall v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co., La.App., 158 So.
  • Stiles v. International Paper Co. 39 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., ; Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, Inc., et al., La.
  • Lampkin v. Kent Piling Co. 34 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    App., , and other cases holding the same might apply; but since the rupture did not occur at such a time they are not applicable."
  • Guillot v. Weaver Brothers Thompson Lumber Co. 31 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Dortch v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co. 30 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    App., ; Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, Inc., et al., La.
  • Hemphill v. Tremont Lumber Co. 24 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    App., , affected by high blood pressure, suffered a severe strain as the result of an unusual physical exertion in the course of his employment.
  • Elmore v. Avoyelles Wholesale Grocery Co. 14 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    169 ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury et al., La.App., ; Biggs v. Libby-Owens-Ford Glass Company, Inc., et al., La.App., 170 So.
  • Rainer v. Caddo Parish Police Jury 14 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    169 ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury [La.App.], ; Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford [Glass Co., La.App.], 170 So.
  • Spears v. Brown Paper Mill Co. 9 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    169 ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury et al., La.App., ; Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, Inc., et al., La.App., 170 So.
  • Mitchell v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation 5 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    169 , and Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, La.App., , and other cases holding the same might apply; but since the rupture did not occur at such a time they are not applicable.
  • Nickelberry v. Ritchie Grocer Co. 199 So. 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    369 ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, La.App., ; Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, Inc., et al., La.App., 170 So.
  • Robichaux v. Realty Operators, Inc. 196 So. 23 La. 1940
    278 ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, La.App., ; Vilce v. Lake Charles Stevedores, La.App., 155 So.
  • Lynn v. Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. 192 So. 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    169 ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury et al., La.App., ; Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., Inc., et al., La.App., 170 So.
  • Rhodes v. Hillyer-Deutsch-Edwards, Inc. 185 So. 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    169 ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, La.App., ; Biggs v. Libby-Owens-Ford Glass Co., La.App., 170 So.
  • Laughlin v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. 182 So. 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    169 ; Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury et al., La.App., .
  • Hennen v. Louisiana Highway Commission 178 So. 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    The Jackson Case was cited, and its doctrine followed, by this court in Renfrow v. Caddo Parish Police Jury,, , and Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, La.App., 170 So.
  • Biggs v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. 170 So. 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
  • Calhoun v. Rayville Ice & Fuel Co. 161 So. 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
  • Hall v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. 158 So. 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    in Identically the same situation, this court decided that the heirs, substituted as plaintiffs, are only entitled to recover the weekly payments which had accrued to deceased at time of his death.