DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 857 So. 2d 407.

63 citing documents.

  • Keith L. Young v. Smitty's Supply, Inc. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
    10121103), - 15, which held that an employer must incur prejudice from the false 1" The judgment states that Smitty' s " failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that Mr. Young violated Louisiana Revised Statute 23: 1208.
  • Jamilyn Calhoun v. Sanderson Farms, Inc. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
  • Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company v. State of Louisiana Worker's Compensation Second Injury Board La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
  • Donald Tanks v. Cb&i, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    10/21/03), -14 (first emphasis added), the supreme court explained how the Forfeiture Statute fits into the overall workers’ compensation scheme: In order “to encourage the employment of physically handicapped employees who have a permanent, partial disability by protecting employers .
  • Ralph Weaver v. Chicago Bridge & Iron La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    10/21/03), the supreme court explained: Forfeiture is a harsh remedy; therefore, statutory forfeiture provisions such as LSA–R.S.
  • Galliano v. CB & I, LLC 275 So. 3d 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • Guichard Operating Co. v. Porche 212 So. 3d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • National Fire Union Insurance Co. v. State Worker's Compensation Second Injury Board 168 So. 3d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Simmon Taylor v. G. W. Morgan Logging Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    [T]o sustain the burden of proof with respect to the second issue, whether it affects the employer’s ability to -- to recover from the second injury fund, this was addressed by our State Supreme Court in Nabors’ Drilling, USA vs. Davis, LA October 21St, 2003, wherein the Court stated that in order for an employer to be prejudiced by a subsequent injury they must show a merger with the subsequent injury and the first injury to produce a substantially 4 greater disability than had previously been
  • Taylor v. G.W. Morgan Logging Co. 100 So. 3d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    ]• [T]o sustain the burden of proof with respect to the second issue, whether it affects the employer’s ability to — to recover from the second injury fund, this was addressed by our State Supreme Court in Nabors’ Drilling, USA v. Davis, LA October 21St, 2003, wherein the Court stated that in order for an employer to be prejudiced by a subsequent injury they must show a merger with the subsequent injury and the first injury to produce a substantially | ¡¡greater disability than had previously be
  • George R. Harris v. Twin City Electric, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    In Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136, pp. 5-7 (La.10/21/03), -15, the supreme court explained: Forfeiture is a harsh remedy; therefore, statutory forfeiture provisions such as LSA-R.S.
  • Harris v. Twin City Electric, LLC 92 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136, pp. 5-7 (La.10/21/03), -15 , the supreme court explained: Forfeiture is a harsh remedy; therefore, statutory forfeiture provisions such as LSA-R.S.
  • Adams v. JPD Energy, Inc. 87 So. 3d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 2003-0136 (La.10/21/03), .
  • David Burkett v. Lfi Fort Pierce, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 9/29/04), (citing Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136 (La.10/21/03), ), this court described the requirements of La.R.S.
  • Burkett v. LFI Fort Pierce, Inc. 63 So. 3d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 9/29/04), (citing Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136 (La.10/21/03), ), this court described the requirements of La.R.S.
  • John Thibodeaux v. Mechanical Construction Co., LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Cheryl F. Benoit v. Ace Transportation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Thibodeaux v. Mechanical Construction Co. 52 So. 3d 1084 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-136 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Benoit v. ACE Transportation 51 So. 3d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-136 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Ronald Babin v. Ernest P. Breaux Electrical, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    10/21/03), -16 (alterations in original, footnotes omitted), the supreme court explained: Forfeiture is a harsh remedy; therefore, statutory forfeiture provisions such as LSA-R.S.
  • Babin v. Ernest P. Breaux Electrical, Inc. 49 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-136, pp. 5-9 (La.10/21/03), -16 (alterations in original, footnotes omitted), the supreme court explained: Forfeiture is a harsh remedy; therefore, statutory forfeiture provisions such as LSA-R.S.
  • Derick Wade Burnett v. Vector Electric & Controls, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Burnett v. Vector Electric & Controls, Inc. 40 So. 3d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    3 Cir. 4/1/09), , writ denied, 09-956 (La.6/19/09), (citing Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-136 (La.10/21/03), ).
  • Billy Jo Massingill v. Dunham Price Group, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Massingill v. Dunham Price Group, L.L.C. 38 So. 3d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    3 Cir. 4/1/09), , writ denied, 09-956 (La.6/19/09), , citing Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-136 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Edward Trent, Jr. v. Triad Electric & Controls La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Trent v. Triad Electric & Controls, Inc. 34 So. 3d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-136 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Bobbie Jeffers v. Kentucky Fried Chicken La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    10/21/03), provides the test for determining whether benefits are subject to forfeiture under §1208.1: (1) an untruthful statement; (2) prejudice to the employer; and (3) compliance with the notice requirements of the statute.
  • Jeffers v. Kentucky Fried Chicken 7 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    The case of Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-136 (La.10/21/03), , provides the test for determining whether benefits are subject to forfeiture under § 1208.1: (1) an untruthful statement; (2) prejudice to the employer; and (3) compliance with the notice requirements of the statute.
  • Donald Sanders v. the Shaw Group La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Chester Armand v. Denton-James, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    10/21/03), (citations omitted), when forfeiture is allowed: 5 By its express terms, LSA-R.S.
  • Sanders v. SHAW GROUP 2 So. 3d 1268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-136 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Armand v. Denton-James, L.L.C. 2 So. 3d 1272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Noting that this provision must be strictly construed because forfeiture is such a harsh remedy, the supreme court outlined in Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136, pp. 4-5 (La.10/21/03), (citations omitted), when forfeiture is allowed: DBy its express terms, LSA-R.S.
  • Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp. v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Second Injury Board 5 So. 3d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    23:1378(A)(1); Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 2003-0136, p. 5 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Nelson v. Nelson 985 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    It should be noted however that this court has already rejected that argument in Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Department Ambulance Service, 93-3099, 93-3110, 93-3112 (La.7/5/94), and, more recently, by unanimous vote in Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/21/03), .
  • Freeman v. Chase 974 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/21/03), fn.
  • James v. Express Marketing, Inc. 973 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/21/03), .
  • Roberts v. D & J Construction Co. 969 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Nabors Drilling, USA v. Davis, 03-0136 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Charles McKelvey, Jr. v. City of Dequincy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • McKelvey v. City of Dequincy 970 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Hall v. Folger Coffee, Co., 03-1734 (La.4/14/04), , citing Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Gutierrez v. Moezzi 957 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    It should be noted however that this court has already rejected that argument in Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Department Ambulance Service, 93-3099, 93-3110, 93-3112 (La.7/5/94), and, more recently, by unanimous vote in Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/21/03), .
  • Ocon v. Regency Motors of Metairie, LLC 957 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-136 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Doyal v. VERNON PARISH SCHOOL BD. 950 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    In Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136, pp. 5-7 (La.10/21/03), -15 , the supreme court explained: Forfeiture is a harsh remedy; therefore, statutory forfeiture provisions such as LSA-R.S.
  • Brian Doyal v. Vernon Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    10/21/03), -15, the supreme court explained: 3 Forfeiture is a harsh remedy; therefore, statutory forfeiture provisions such as LSA-R.S.
  • David Mullins v. Concrete & Steel Erectors La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    10/21/03), which observed that forfeiture is a harsh 5 remedy, and therefore, forfeiture statutes must be strictly construed.
  • Mullins v. Concrete & Steel Erectors 940 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    In making his analysis on this issue, the WCJ cited the supreme court decision of Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-136 (La.10/21/03), , which observed that forfeiture is a harsh remedy, and therefore, forfeiture statutes must be strictly construed.
  • Buggage v. Volks Constructors 945 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    1 Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 2003- *35 0136, pp. 4-6 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Emmitt Anthony v. Southern Chevrolet Cadillac La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Anthony v. Southern Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc. 918 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136 (La.10/21/03), .
  • Zimko v. American Cyanamid 905 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    See Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.4/14/04), (citing Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/21/03), )(holding the applicable standard of review in addressing the sufficiency of the evidence is manifest error).