Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 776 So. 2d 439.

16 citing documents.

Sarah Eilts v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Breakout Kings Production, LLC, and Aaron Nelson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
1/17/01), Reeves v. Structural Pres.
Sibert v. National Oil Well Varco, L.P. 136 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Inc., 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), ; Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 2000-1335 (La.1/17/01), .
Batiste v. Bayou Steel Corp. 45 So. 3d 167 La. 2010
See Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 00-1335 (La.1/17/01), .
Berry v. Valley Gin, Inc. 16 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 2000-1335 (La.1/17/01), , citing Reeves, supra
Chad Perry v. United States Speciality Sports Assoc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Richard Romero v. Grey Wolf Drilling Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Romero v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 918 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(C)(2) does not require Grey Wolf to negate all essential elements of Romero’s claim, but “rather to point out to the court that there Ris an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to plaintiffs’ claim.” Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 00-1335, p. 4 (La.1/17/01), .
Burrow v. Delta Container and XYZ Ins. Co. 887 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
In Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Company, 00-1335, p. 4 (La.1/17/01), , 441 and Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 5 (La.3/12/99), -211 , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that the exclusion is narrow, and that the Louisiana legislature has rejected amendments to the section that would allow double compensation in cases where an employer violate
Nicks v. Ax Reinforcement Co. 841 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
1/17/01), and Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , explain that the exclusion is narrow, and that the Louisiana legislature has rejected amendments to the section that would allow double compensation in cases where an employer violated a safety regulation, failed to provide a required
Ackel v. Academy Louisiana Co. 821 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Academy cites Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling, 2000-1335 (La.1/18/01), , arguing that Penalber is outdated law.
Temple v. J & S Communication Contractors Cell Tech Services Partnership 805 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Two recent supreme court cases, Carder v. Grey Wolf Drilling Company, 00-1835 (La.1/17/01), and Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , explain that the exclusion is narrow, and that the Louisiana legislature has rejected amendments to the section that would allow double compensation in cases where an employer violated a safety regulation, failed to provide a required
Keppard v. AFC Enterprises, Inc. 802 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
As the supreme court ruled in Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.1/18/01), , the notion that summary judgment is rarely appropriate in cases involving intent must be viewed in the context of the new summary judgment law.
Howell v. Taylor 799 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Company, et al, 00-1335 (La.1/17/01), , citing Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, et al, supra .
Harris v. Eckerd Corp. 796 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.1/18/01), ; Robinson v. Brookshires # 26, 33,713 (La.App.2d Cir.8/25/00), .
Henderson v. Claiborne Elec. 793 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
See also Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 00-1335 (La.01/17/01), ; and, Guillory v. Olin Corporation, 99-567 (La.App.
Smith v. TANNER HEAVY EQUIP. CO., INC. 790 So. 2d 615 La. 2001
Carrier v. Grey Wolf, 00-1335 (La.1/17/01), ; Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .