Legal Opinion
Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc.
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Decided May 29, 1933No. 32255PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ST. PAUL, Justice.
Plaintiff was accidentally injured whilst in the employ of defendant, and claims workman’s compensation under Act No. 20 of 1914 as amended by Act No. 242 of 1928. The only question involved is the rate at which his compensation shall be allowed.
I
He was paid at the rate of 65 cents an hour when he worked; eight hours constitute a working day, and six days constitute a working week. If he worked eight hours every day and six days every week, his “daily rate of pay” would be $5.20 and his weekly wages $31.20. But on account of the scarcity of work in his line (longshoreman)…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- King v. American Tank & Equipment Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1932
- Chatman v. Compania de Navegacao, Lloyd BrasileiroLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1932
- Menzel v. Southern Stevedoring Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1928
- Wilson v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1925
- Gousoulin v. Lake Charles Stevedores, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1932
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- Carlino v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1940
- Carrington v. Consolidated UnderwritersSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1956
- Calhoon v. Meridian Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1934
- Brown v. Benton Creosoting Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1962
- Carpenter v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1940
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.