Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 836 So. 2d 14.

149 citing documents.

Newsom v. Global Data Systems, Inc. 107 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), .
Livingston Parish Council on Aging v. Graves 105 So. 3d 683 La. 2012
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439 (La.1/14/03), .
Keys v. Republic Services 99 So. 3d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), ; Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
Simmon Taylor v. G. W. Morgan Logging Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
James Keys v. Republic Servs, Inc./allied Waste Servs of Acadiana-Scott La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
Taylor v. G.W. Morgan Logging Co. 100 So. 3d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), ; Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
Patrick Johnson v. Conagra Poultry Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
1/14/03), (second alteration in original), the supreme court stated: [W]e find it consistent with the legislative intent to interpret ―claim‖ as a demand for particular benefits as found by the appellate court.
Johnson v. Conagra Poultry Co. 87 So. 3d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Gaylord Chemical Corporation v. Short 81 So. 3d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439, 02-0442, 02-0478, p. 20 (La.1/14/03), .
Henry Marange, Jr. v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
1/14/03), our supreme court interpreted La.R.S.
Marange v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. 75 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 4/2/08), , 846: In Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439, p. 18 (La.1/14/03), , our supreme court interpreted La.R.S.
Edward Cox v. Port Aggregates, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
1/14/03), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court cited this holding with approval.
Cox v. Port Aggregates, Inc. 54 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
As in Gay , “to conclude otherwise would dilute the deterrent effect of these statutory provisions, which are not intended to make the worker ‘whole’ but rather to discourage specific conduct on the part of the employer.” See also Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), , in which the Louisiana Supreme Court cited this holding with approval.
Hofler v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. 57 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Fontenot v. Reddell Vid-rine Water Dist., 2002-0439 (La.01/14/03), .
Thomas Medical Group, Apmc (Emil Mallaun) v. Stine, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Thomas Medical Group, Apmc (Derek McDavid) v. Stine, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Thomas Medical Group, Apmc (Eric Brewton) v. Stine, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Thomas Medical Group, Apmc v. Stine, LLC 52 So. 3d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439, p. 18 (La.1/14/03), .
Thomas Medical Group, APMC v. Stine, LLC 52 So. 3d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439, p. 18 (La.1/14/03), .
Thomas Medical Group, Apmc v. Stine, LLC 53 So. 3d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439, p. 18 (La.1/14/03), .
Beauregard Memorial Hospital v. Joy T. Barber La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
1/14/03), Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
Patrick D. Johnson v. Conagra Poultry Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
1/14/03), rehearing granted in part on other grounds, 02-442 (La.
Johnson v. CONAGRA POULTRY CO. 26 So. 3d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
“[I]t is well established that the underlying reason for the imposition of penalties and attorneys’ fees in the workers’ compensation arena is to combat the indifference by employers and insurers toward injured workers.” Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist, 02-439, p. 14 (La.1/14/03), , rehearing granted in part on other grounds, 02-442 (La.4/21/03), .
Beauregard Memorial Hospital v. Barber 26 So. 3d 979 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439, 02-442, 02-478 (La.1/14/03), ; Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
Tensas Poppadoc, Inc. v. Chevron USA, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Civ.Code art. 10; Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439 (La.1/14/03)
Marvin Arnaud v. Shaw Construction La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439 (La.1/14/03)
Arnaud v. Shaw Construction 12 So. 3d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439 (La.1/14/03), .
Tensas Poppadoc, Inc. v. Chevron USA, Inc. 10 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Civ.Code art. 10; Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439 (La.1/14/03), .
Kim Williams v. Averitt Express, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
Williams v. Averitt Express, Inc. 7 So. 3d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), ; Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
Jackson v. M.R. Pittman, LLC 5 So. 3d 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
“It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that when two statutes deal with the same subject matter, the statute specifically directed to the matter at issue must prevail as an exception to the more general statute.” Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-0439, p. 20 (La.1/14/03), .
Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Jamie Darbonne La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
1/14/03), Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Darbonne 6 So. 3d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439, 02-442, 02-M78 (La.1/14/03), ; Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
Dianna Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Bd. 998 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439, pp. 13-14 (La.1/14/03), .
Spires v. RAYMOND WESTBROOK LOGGING 997 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
See Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., XXXX-XXXX (La.1/14/03), .
MJ Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 998 So. 2d 16 La. 2008
Civ.Code art. 10; Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439 (La.1/14/03), .
Honeycutt v. HENRY'S PLUMBING 981 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Furthermore, "[i]n Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439, 02-478 (La.1/14/03), , rehearing granted in part on other grounds, 02-442, 01-478 (La.4/21/03), , the supreme court held that La.R.S.
Steve Honeycutt v. Henry's Plumbing La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
1/14/03), rehearing granted in part on other grounds, 02-442, 01-478 (La.
Fred Ducote v. Louisiana Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
1/14/03), our supreme court interpreted La.R.S.
Ducote v. Louisiana Industries, Inc. 980 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
In Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439, p. 18 (La.1/14/03), , our supreme court interpreted La.R.S.
Abbeville General Hospital v. Tarita Manor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
ABBEVILLE GENERAL HOSP. v. Manor 980 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439 (La.1/14/03), .
Shannon Campbell v. City of Leesville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
1/14/03), (quoting Haynes v. Williams, 01-26, p. 26 (La.App.
Campbell v. City of Leesville 974 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
The City argues that "the standard governing whether the [WCJ] herein erred in awarding multiple penalties for the denial of a single demand for two MRIs is whether the denial was a `single violation.'" Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439, 02-442, 02-478, p. 27, n. 12 (La.1/14/03), (quoting Haynes v. Williams, 01-26, p. 26 (La.App.
Fassitt v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service 974 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
Claimant then points to Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., XXXX-XXXX (La.1/14/03), , wherein the court found that for the purposes of vocational rehabilitation, it is the duty of the vocational rehabilitation consultant to examine the job pool in the worker's geographic area.
FNB OF PICAYUNE v. Pearl River Fabricators 971 So. 2d 302 La. 2007
CIV.CODE ANN. art. 10; Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439,(La.1/14/03), .
Cotton v. First Fleet 957 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), ; Olander v. Schillilaegh's, 04-725 (La.App.
Clayton Cotten v. First Fleet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
Cherry Cotton v. First Fleet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by