DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co., 159 So. 438.

28 citing documents.

  • Jackson v. Phoenix Insurance Co. 252 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 188 La.
  • Broussard v. City of Baton Rouge 216 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    9 ; Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co. (La.App.1935) ; and Newsom v. Caldwell & McCann (La.App.1951) .
  • Glidden v. Alexandria Concrete Co. 132 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Moreover, it has been held that one is disabled when in performing his work the pain and discomfort is increasingly, aggravated, Yarborough v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., (total and permanent allowed); total and permanent allowed where pain, disability and discomfort present, Clifton v. Glassell-Taylor Co., La.App., ; pain, hardship and discomfort, Stansbury v. National Auto & Cas.
  • Costanzo v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 124 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
    Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 188 La.
  • Patterson v. Cargo Services 95 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    In Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., , the refusal of a laborer, 52 years of age, who had sustained an injury to the upper part of femur of the left leg, extending to the left hip joint, to submit to an operation to remove a bony spur that had formed around the fractured bone and muscles, was held not to be unreasonable, since it would have been nec
  • Watson v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 88 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    585 ; Fredieu v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., supra; Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., .
  • Reed v. Calcasieu Paper Co. 80 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1955
    See Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, 188 La.
  • Coon v. Germany Iron Works 81 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    1st Cir.1951, ; Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co.; La.App., ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, 188 La.
  • French v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. 70 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    157 ; Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Bronson v. Harris Ice Cream Co., 150 La.
  • Estilette v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 64 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    App., ; Lee v. International Paper Co., La.App., .
  • Saltzman v. Lone Star Cement Corp. 55 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    868 , as follows : “ ‘ * * * The provision “does not mean that plaintiff must, in order to avail himself of these benefits, become absolutely helpless, but merely requires such disability as renders him unable to perform the substantial and material part of his occupation.” ’ ” In Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., , the Court said: “It is not in keeping with the spirit and philosophy of the Workmen’s Compensation Law to say that an injured laborer is not totally disabled to do
  • Fredieu v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. 53 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1951
    See: Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.App., ; Bronson v. Harris Ice Cream Company, 150 La.
  • Stansbury v. National Auto. & Cas. Ins. Co. 52 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    See Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity *303 Co., La.App., ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, 188 La.
  • Boling v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation 42 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., ; Custer v. New Orleans Paper Box Factory, La.
  • Crawford v. Maryland Casualty Co. 39 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., ; Butzman v. Delta Shipbuilding Company, Inc., La.
  • Bailey v. Maryland Casualty Co. 34 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
  • Hecht v. Higgins Industries 25 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    App., ] as holding: " 'When an injured employee is unable to do work of the same description that he was employed to do when injured, his injury, in contemplation of law, is equal to total disability.'
  • Robinson v. Frost Hardwood Floors 25 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    App., ; Custer v. New Orleans Paper Box Factory, La.
  • Ranatza v. Higgins Industries, Inc. 23 So. 2d 45 La. 1945
    761 ; Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Custer v. New Orleans Paper Box Factory, La.App., 170 So.
  • Butzman v. Delta Shipbuilding Co. 21 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    App., ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars Co., 188 La.
  • McKenzie v. Standard Motor Car Co. 15 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    6 ; Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Thompson v. Leach McClain et al., La.App., , 110; Phillips v. Wohlfeld, La.App., ; Sumrall v. E.I.
  • Simmons v. Blair 194 So. 585 La. 1940
    Upon examination of the cases cited, we only find two cases that are in any way similar *678 to the instant case: Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.App., ; Bronson v. Harris Ice Cream Co., Inc., 150 La.
  • Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc. 179 So. 6 La. 1938
    “In Yarbrough v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., , the court said: ‘It is not in keeping with the spirit and philosophy of the Workmen’s Compensation Law to say that an injured laborer is not totally disabled to do work of any reasonable character, under its provisions, because he may be able to do some *1115 sort of work, even though in doing so physical pain
  • Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc. 175 So. 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    Bell v. Employers’ Liability Assur.
  • Pierce v. Cochran & Franklin Co. 175 So. 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    Davis v. Trans-American Construction Company (La.App.)
  • Boughton v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York 165 So. 140 La. 1935
    Finley v. Texas Co. et al. (La.App.)
  • Finley v. Texas Co. 162 So. 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    employee to submit to an operation for a simple hernia, nevertheless, in the instant case, by reason of the fact that there was some danger of fatal result and that a first operation had been unsuccessful, the injured party’s refusal to submit to an operation was not unreasonable.” , and held, as reflected from syllabus, that: “Injured employee’s refusal to submit to operation on leg held reasonable as respects minimizing of compensation, where to accomplish operation flesh of femur about exosto
  • Davis v. Trans-American Const. Co. 160 So. 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    App.) , for discussion of disability therein involved.