Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Marquez v. Le Blanc, 143 So. 108.

15 citing documents.

Harris v. Hymel Store Co. 200 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
*88 "We cited Marquez v. Le Blanc, La.App., , in which we said: `* * * The main reason for a lack of satisfactory consistency in the jurisprudence on this subject comes from the fact that in compensation cases the courts have adopted a liberal construction in favor of the claimant where the defense was that the relation of employer and employee did not exi
Wills v. Correge 148 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
713 ; Marquez v. LeBlanc, La.App., .
O'BRIEN v. Traders and General Insurance Company 136 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
* * * * * * In Marquez v. LeBlanc et al., La.App., , the Court said: "The authorities on the question involved are far from uniform and clear, and have been decided in a number of instances by a divided court.
Scott v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 134 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
116, 1938 , $2,000 for inch-long scar on cheek, and slight unobservable scars on nose and lip, of a 28 year old unmarried lady; Marquez v. Le Blanc, La.App.Orl., , $2,500 principally for scar on cheek of a 9 year old girl, which had required twelve sutures but which would become less prominent as the child grew older; Dyess v. Landry, Orl., 15 La.App.
La Borde v. McBride 112 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
That there is a different rule in such cases is well established.” We cited Marquez v. Le Blanc, La.App., , in which we said: “ * * * The main reason for a lack of satisfactory consistency in the jurisprudence on this subject comes from the fact that in compensation cases the courts have adopted a liberal construction in favor of the claimant where the defense was that the relation of employer and employee did not ex
Allgood v. Loeb 22 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
App., , where Justice Higgins of the Supreme Court (then a member of this court) observed that there was a lack of consistency in the jurisprudence concerning employees and independent contractors and that, whereas the courts had adopted a liberal construction in favor of claimants in compensation cases, a strict interpreta
Buettner v. Polar Bar Ice Cream Co. 17 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
99 ; Marquez v. Le Blanc et al., La.App., ; Nesmith v. Reich Bros. et al., 203 La.
Kruckeberg v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. 13 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
185 ; Marquez v. Le Blanc, La.App., ; Berry's Law of Automobiles, 7th E., Vol.
McAllister v. Jackson Brewing Co. 6 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
They rest this contention on the doctrine announced in the case of Marquez v. LeBlanc et al., La.App., .
Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Standard Coffee Co. 2 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Justice Higgins, then a member of this court, called attention to the distinction which the courts had made in the interpretation of the doctrine of respondeat superior as applied to compensation cases and to actions, ex delicto, as appears by the following language: "The authorities on the question involved ar
Gallaher v. Ricketts 191 So. 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
In Marquez v. Le Blanc, La.App., , we said: “ * * * The main reason for a lack of satisfactory consistency in the jurisprudence on this subject comes from the fact that in compensation cases the courts have adopted a liberal construction in favor of the claimant where the defense was that the relation of employer and employee did not exist betwe
Balsamo v. Hall 170 So. 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Escalante v. Richard, 14 La.App.
Ravare v. McCormick & Co. 166 So. 183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
a suit was instituted against Le Blanc and the State Agriculture Credit Corporation.
Jones v. Shehee Ford Wagon & Harness Co. 157 So. 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Leiser v. Thomas 150 So. 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
App.) -111; Richard v. Roquevert (La.