DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

149 citing documents.

  • Marcia Wyble v. Acadiana Preparatory School La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Wyble v. Acadiana Preparatory School 956 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.01/14/03), .
  • Cotton v. First Fleet 957 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Fontenot v. *246 Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), ; Olander v. Schillilaegh's, 04-725 (La.App.
  • Stoshak v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board 959 So. 2d 996 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 2002-0439, p. 7 (La.1/14/03), .
  • State v. Dick 951 So. 2d 124 La. 2007
    Civ.Code art. 10; Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439, p. 7, (La.1/14/03), .
  • Carter v. DP & L TIMBER 944 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439, 02-442, 02-478 (La.1/14/03), .
  • Ronald J. Carter v. Dp & L Timber La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Dianna Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Bd. 939 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439, 02-442, 02-478 (La.1/14/03), .
  • Taylor v. Hollywood Casino 935 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-0439 (La.01/14/03), .
  • Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. John C. Guilbeau La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    1/14/03), Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App.
  • Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Guilbeau 934 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), ; Olander v. Schillilaegh's, 04-725 (La.App.
  • Dewitt Williams v. A-Jax Lumber Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    1/14/03), in support of its failure to award penalties.
  • Williams v. A-Jax Lumber Co. 930 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Chelette cited the dissent in Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439 (La.1/14/03), in support of its failure to award penalties.
  • Ryan v. Blount Bros. Const., Inc. 927 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    In Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., XXXX-XXXX (La.1/14/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the issue of multiple penalties and concluded that LSA-R.S.
  • Juracovich v. ST. ANNE GENERAL HOSP. 916 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    As set forth in Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, XXXX-XXXX, p. 18 (La.1/14/03), , the supreme court interpreted LSA-R.S.
  • Pamela Metoyer v. Roy O. Martin, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    9/24/04), the court explained the interpretation of the provision: The Louisiana Supreme Court in Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439, 02-442, 02-478 (La.1/14/03), found La.R.S.
  • Metoyer v. Roy O. Martin, Inc. 895 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    3 Cir. 4/14/04) , , writ denied, 04-1311 (La.9/24/04), , the court explained the interpretation of the provision: The Louisiana Supreme Court in Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439, 02-442, 02-478 (La.1/14/03), , found La.R.S.
  • Player v. International Paper Co. 892 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    As to the $20,000 award, the WCJ opined that it could award up to $134,000 under Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/14/03), .
  • Terry Sigler v. Dressers rand/coastal Chemical La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    1/14/03), the supreme court recognized that multiple penalties may be awarded for multiple violations of compensation and medical benefits claims.2 Further, the supreme court expressed confidence that “the OWC and the appellate courts are fully able to ferret out those penalties for which an award should be made.” Id.
  • Sigler v. Rand 896 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    In Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439 (La.1/14/03), , the supreme court recognized that multiple penalties may be awarded for multiple violations of compensation and medical benefits claims.
  • Juan Rivera v. M & R Cable Contractors, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    1/14/03), rehearing granted in part on other grounds, 02-442, 01-478 (La.
  • Rivera v. M & R Cable Contractors, Inc. 896 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    In 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.
  • Michael J. Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439 (La.2003)
  • Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District 889 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439 (La.2003) .
  • Don R. Young v. Gulf Coast Carpets La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    1/14/03), rehearing granted on other grounds, 02-442, 02-478 (La.
  • Young v. Gulf Coast Carpets 888 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    In Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439, 02-442, 02-478, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), , rehearing granted on other grounds, 02-442, 02-478 (La.4/21/03), , the supreme court reiterated the well-known precept that "[a]wards of penalties in workers' compensation cases are essentially penal in nature, being imposed to discourage indifference and the undesirable conduct of employers and in
  • Richard Sterling v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    1/14/03), Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.
  • Sterling v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. 886 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439, 02-442, 02-478 (La.1/14/03), ; Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ; Sharbono v. Steve Lang & Son Loggers, 97-0110 (La.7/1/97), .
  • State v. Campbell 877 So. 2d 112 La. 2004
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439, p. 13 (La.1/14/03), .
  • Montgomery v. Orleans Parish School Board 876 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    In Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 2002-0439, 2002-0442, 2002-0478, p. 18 (La.1/14/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted the penalty provision of La.
  • Leonard v. James Indus. Constructors 879 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    This is clear from the relevant statutory provisions, as well as the supreme court's discussion of the multiple penalty issues in Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-0439, 02-0442, 02-0478 (La.1/14/03), .
  • Smith v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. 871 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439, 02-442, 02-478 (La.1/14/03), , found La.R.S.
  • Lawrence Hagler Smith v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439, 02-442, 02-478 (La.1/14/03), found La.R.S.
  • Donna M. Phillips v. Diocese of Lafayette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    1/14/03), that multiple penalties are recoverable under La.R.S.
  • Phillips v. Diocese of Lafayette 869 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Although the supreme court concluded in Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-439, 02-442, 02-478 (La.1/14/03), , that multiple penalties are recoverable under La.R.S.
  • City of Jennings v. Mary Lou Doucet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • City of Jennings v. Doucet 865 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), .
  • Wilbert Arnold v. Wal-Mart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    1/14/03), the Louisiana Supreme Court revisited the issue of the proper standard to be employed in determining whether penalties and attorney’s fees are appropriate where workers’ compensation benefits have not been timely paid.
  • Darrell Ranel v. McDonald's La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Arnold v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 858 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In its recent decision in Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439 (La.1/14/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court revisited the issue of the proper standard to be employed in determining whether penalties and attorney's fees are appropriate where workers' compensation benefits have not been timely paid.
  • Ranel v. McDonald's 858 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, et al., 02-0489, 02-0442, 02-0478 (La.1/14/03), .
  • Gajeske v. Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. 859 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439, 02-0442, 02-0478 (La.1/14/03), .
  • Chelette v. Riverwood International USA, Inc. 858 So. 2d 412 La. 2003
  • Haynes v. Williams Fence & Aluminum 854 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    See Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02-0439, 02-0442, 02-0478 (La.1/14/03), .
  • Held v. Aubert 845 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, XXXX-XXXX, XXXX-XXXX, XXXX-XXXX, p. 7 (La.1/14/03), .
  • Roque v. Shell Beach Trucking 844 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 02-0439 (La.1/14/03), .
  • Boudreaux v. Bellsouth Telecommunications 844 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    See, Fontenot v. Redell Vidrine Water District, 02-0439 and Haynes v. Williams Fence and Aluminum, 02-0442, 02-0478 (La.1/14/03), .
  • Moore v. City of New Orleans 839 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    In Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, XXXX-XXXX, XXXX-XXXX, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/14/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted the penalty provision of La.