6 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1933–2002 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Bradford Motor Freight Linegreen1 sentence2002The initial expression of the rule in that early decision under the Workers' Compensation Act was that "[w]here an employee, while riding to or from his work in a conveyance under the control of and furnished by the employer as an incident of the employment is injured, it is generally held that the injury arose in the course and out of the employment." Id.; see also Thompson v. Bradford Motor Freight Line, 148 So. 79 (La. | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Lake City Beverage, Inc.green1 sentence1999Washington v. Lake City Beverage, Inc., 352 So.2d 717, 722 (La.App. 3 Cir.1977), writ denied, 354 So.2d 1050 (La.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Lake City Beverage, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999Washington v. Lake City Beverage, Inc., 352 So.2d 717, 722 (La.App. 3 Cir.1977), writ denied, 354 So.2d 1050 (La.1978). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
green
1 sentence1991It is a species of legal servitude in favor of neighboring property, an expression of the principle of sic utere." Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Jones v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co.
neutral
1 sentence1969Co., 2 La.App. 260 (1925), cert. denied. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
State v. Ford
green
1 sentence1940The reason for' this rulé of law, as stated in the case of State v. Ford, 37 La.Ann. 443 , is expressed in Sections 698 and 701 of Wharton on Criminal Evidence as follows: “In cases of crimes perpetrated by several persons, when once the conspiracy or combination is established, the act or declaration of one conspirator or accomplice in the prosecution of the enterprise, is considered the act or declaration of all, and therefore imputable to all. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Barrow v. McDonald
neutral
1 sentence1933Barrow v. McDonald, 12 La. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.