Cited by

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

63 citing documents.

Bordelon v. Cox Communications 905 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
The Louisiana Supreme Court recently addressed the employer’s burden of proof under the forfeiture statute in Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136 (La.10/21/03), , stating: Forfeiture is a harsh remedy; therefore, statutory forfeiture provisions such as LSA-R.S.
Labor Finders v. Joseph Jean Batiste La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
10/21/03), “[t]he employer is not entitled to reimbursement from the second injury fund merely because an employee with a pre- existing disability is subsequently injured.
Labor Finders v. Batiste 899 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
However, as noted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-136, p. 8 (La.10/21/03), , "[t]he employer is not entitled to reimbursement from the second injury fund merely because an employee with a pre-existing disability is subsequently injured.
Dwight Hickman v. Jim Smith Logging La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
10/21/03), stated: This proviso strikes a careful balance.
Edwin J. Dupuis v. Picard Steel Erectors, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Dupuis v. Picard Steel Erectors, Inc. 883 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
23:1208.1 in detail in Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136 (La.10/21/03), .
Hickman v. Jim Smith Logging 883 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
23:1208.1, the court in Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136, p. 6 (La.10/21/03), , stated: This proviso strikes a careful balance.
Hall v. Folger Coffee Co. 874 So. 2d 90 La. 2004
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 *99 (La.10/21/03), .
Fontenot v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 870 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 03-0136 (La.10/21/03), .
Margaret Fontenot v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Roy Strother v. Guinn Oilfield Services La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Strother v. Guinn Oilfield Services, L.L.C. 867 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Stiner v. Antoni's Italian Café 857 So. 2d 400 La. 2003
10/21/03), , decided this date.