Legal Opinion
Crysel v. R.W. Briggs Co.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided March 6, 1933No. Nos. 4474, 4475PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLS, Judge.
These two .eases, arising out of the same accident, are consolidated for the disposal of exceptions of no cause of action filed by defendant in each case. The suits are brought under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act No. 20 of 1914, as amended). As, for the purpose of the exceptions, all well-pleaded facts contained in the petition are taken as true, we will quote in full the allegations relied upon to support plaintiffs’ demands:
“That R. W. Briggs and Company is engaged in the construction of a concrete highway, on Road Number Twenty, in the Parish of Rapides, State of…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- McNicol's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Cudahy Packing Co. Of Nebraska v. ParramoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Lumberman's Reciprocal Ass'n. v. BehnkenTexas Supreme Court · 1922
- Bountiful Brick Co. v. GilesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Kern v. Southport Mill, Ltd.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1932
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Keyhea v. Woodard-Walker Lumber Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1933
- Crysel v. Gifford-Hill & Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1935
- Neyland v. Maryland Casualty Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1946
- Washington v. Sewerage and Water BoardLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1938
- Hay v. Travelers Insurance CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1958
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.