Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Walker v. Bossier Medical Center, 894 So. 2d 1096.

89 citing documents.

Barry Bernadas C/O Bella Zoya Properties v. Natasha Edet La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
3/2/05), Sileo v. Berger, 11-0295, p. 9 (La.
Thomas Southern v. Servpro D E Investments and LWCC La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
3/2/05), Precept Credit Opportunities Fund LP v. Walker, 21-0670 (La.
Norman Joseph Porche, Jr. Versus Sharon Dawsey Porche La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
3/2/05), Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.
Louisiana-Annunciation Condominium Association, Inc. v. Kathryn L. Kennedy La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Plant-N-Power Services, Inc. v. JRE Field Services, LLC Tex David Simoneaux, Jr., JRE Industrial Services, LLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
Bradley W. Duke v. Eddie G. Thompson and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
3/2/05), Klebanoff v. Haberle, supra.
Succession of Timothy Dupre Mosing La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Latashia v. Perez, Both Individually and on Behalf of Unborn Child of Travis Chiokai (Deceased) v. Irby Construction … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
3/2/05), the supreme court stated, “In interpreting the Workers’ Compensation Act, courts must be mindful of the basic history and policy of the compensation movement, which includes the provision of social insurance to compensate victims of industrial accidents.” With regard to death benefits, the supreme court stated
Jerry Harris and Elnora Harris v. Union National Fire Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Mary Ortega v. Cantu Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
James Walter v. PCP International, Inc., and Amtrust North America La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
Robert Daniels v. The State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Transportation and Development La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
Daniels v. State Through Department of Transportation and Development 275 So. 3d 998 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
Barnett v. La. Med. Mut. Ins. Co. 248 So. 3d 594 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
3/2/05), , 1104, article 3071 requires the presence of two elements for a valid compromise: "(1) mutual intention of preventing or putting an end to the litigation, and (2) reciprocal concessions of the parties to adjust their differences."
Rapheal Guillory, Jr. v. R & R Construction, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Company United, Inc., 2004-0100 (La.3/2/05)
Guillory v. R&R Constr., Inc. 241 So. 3d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
800 Iberville Street Ltd. Partnership v. V Restaurant Group, L.L.C. 221 So. 3d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Diversified Marine Services, Inc. v. Jewel Marine, Inc. 222 So. 3d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Bay v. Jefferson Parish Public Schools 218 So. 3d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
3/2/05), , 1102, the Louisiana Supreme Court wrote: Interpretation of this statute begins, as it must, with the language of the statute itself.
Raymond Charles Cressy v. Huffines Hyundai McKinney, Lp La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Magee v. Williams 197 So. 3d 265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
art. 2085; Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United Ltd., 2004-0100 (La.3/2/05), .
Radcliffe 10, L.L.C. v. Burger 191 So. 3d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Co. United, Inc., 2004-0100 (La.3/2/05), .
Morris, Lee & Bayle, LLC v. Macquet 192 So. 3d 198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 04-0100, p. 10 (La.3/2/05), .
Leidelmeijen v. Ferncrest Manor Nursing Home Luba Workers' Comp. 191 So. 3d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
their insurers toward injured workers; Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co, 2004-0100, p. 17 (La.3/2/05), .
Baker v. Harrah's 190 So. 3d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 2004-0100, p. 17 (La.3/2/05), .
Contogouris v. Ocean Therapy Solutions, LLC 187 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
The ■ Louisiana Supreme Court noted in Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United Inc., 04-100, p. 10 (La.3/2/05), , that Article 3071 requires the presence of two elements for a valid compromise: “(1) mutual intention of preventing or putting an end to the Mitigation, and (2) reciprocal concessions of the parties to adjust their differences.” See Rein v. Edwards, 05-754 (La.
Goers v. Mayfield 195 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
art. 2085; Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United Ltd., 2004-0100 (La.3/2/05), ; Century Ready Mix Corp. v. Boyte, 42,634 (La.App.
Taylor v. Hanson North America 186 So. 3d 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 04-0100 (La.3/2/05), -04 , the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that a partial settlement of a compensation claim, if properly confected under LSA-C.C.
Marshall v. Town of Winnsboro 184 So. 3d 796 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Trahan v. *805 Coca Cola Bottling Co., 2004-0100 (La.03/02/05), .
Augusta v. Audubon Zoo 176 So. 3d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United, 2004-0100, pp. 6-7 (La.3/2/05), , the Louisiana Supreme Court wrote: Interpretation of this statute begins, as it must, with the language of the statute itself.
Sylvester Harris v. Olivier's Contractors La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Harris v. Olivier's Contractors 155 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 04-100, pp. 6-7 (La.3/2/05), .
Belinda Flores v. a & Z Tobacco, LLC, D/B/A Pak a Sak La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
3/2/05), is misplaced in this case because the claimant did not cash the check in Trahan, whereas the check was cashed in this case.
Flores v. A & Z Tobacco, LLC 152 So. 3d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
|4A & Z argues that Ms. Flores’s reliance on Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., United, Inc., 04-100 (La.3/2/05), , is misplaced in this case because the claimant did not cash the check in Trahan , whereas the check was cashed in this case.
Betty Hebert Geer v. Bp America Production Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 2004-0100 (La.3/2/05)
Geer v. BP America Production Co. 150 So. 3d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 2004-0100 (La.3/2/05), .
Evelyn Thiels Holt, Et Ux. v. Ace American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Holt v. Ace American Insurance Co. 149 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
ispute or an uncertainty concerning an obligation or other legal relationship.” The Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that article “provides |4for two elements of a compromise: (1) mutual intention of preventing or putting an end to the litigation, and (2) reciprocal concessions of the parties to adjust their differences.” Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 04-100, p. 10 (La.3/2/05), .
Christopher Ayro v. Willstaff, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United, 04-100 (La.3/2/05), ” Young v. Jack In The Box, Inc. 05-1573 p. 2 (La.App.
Ayro v. Willstaff, Inc. 153 So. 3d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United, 04-100 (La.3/2/05), .” Young v. Jack In The Box, Inc. 05-1573 p. 2 (La.App.
Feingerts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 117 So. 3d 1294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Mr. Feingerts notes that the Supreme Court in Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., United, Inc., 04-0100, p. 10 (La.3/2/05), , upheld a partial settlement recited on the record in the OWC.
Scheuermann v. Cadillac of Metairie, Inc. 112 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 04-0100 (La.3/2/05), .
Morvant v. Shop Rite, Inc. 108 So. 3d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See Deshotel, ; but see also Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 04-100 (La.3/2/05), (holding that settlement agreement was a compromise that constituted a confession of judgment and compromise was a final, non-appealable judgment).
Hervey J. Morvant v. Shop-Rite, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3/2/05), (holding that settlement agreement was a compromise that constituted a confession of judgment and compromise was a final, non-appealable judgment).
Brown v. Offshore Energy Service, Inc. 104 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 2004-0100 (La.3/2/05), .
William Speyrer v. the Gray Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
3/2/05), Brasseaux v. Allstate Ins.
Speyrer v. Gray Insurance Co. 83 So. 3d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 04-100 (La.3/2/05), ; Brasseaux v. Allstate Ins.
Gaylord Chemical Corporation v. Short 81 So. 3d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 04-0100, p. 17 (La.3/2/05), .
Ocmand v. Lubrano 78 So. 3d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
art. 2046, which states that “[w]hen the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties’ intent.” Trahan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 04-0100, pp. 14-15 (La.3/2/05), -07 (quoting La.C.C.
Sileo v. Berger 74 So. 3d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Trahan v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company United, Inc., 2004-0100, p. 10 (La.3/2/05), .