DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., 588 So. 2d 1353.

36 citing documents.

  • Eugene Latour, II v. Emanee Q. Brock, Et Al. La. 2023
    s acts of its employee the “tortious conduct of the [employee must be] so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’ s business, as compared with conduct instituted by purely person al considerations enti rely extraneous to the employer’ s interest.” Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Marion Felps v. Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc., Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and John H. Williams La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
    2d 640 subordinate employees act of stealing radios was not within employment duties as a janitor and while supervisor was functioning within his duties in suspending employee, employee' s response of kicking his supervisor was not rooted in an employment endeavor); Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., ( La.
  • Stonetrust Commercial Insurance Company v. Wayne Dennis Stevenson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
    Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., ( La.
  • Robert James Lee Guidry v. Worknet 2000, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    be] so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct instituted by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest.” Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Stanley R. Palowsky, III v. W. Brandon Cork, Anthony White, OHC Services, L.L.C. and Alternative Environmental Solutions, Inc. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
    3 See Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., ( La.
  • Wade Conner v. Klarc Lemelle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    employer to be vicariously liable, the tortious conduct of the employee must be “so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct instituted by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest.” (La.App.
  • Loya v. Lucas 201 So. 3d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    e tortious acts- of its employee the “tortious conduct of the [employee must be] so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his - employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct instituted by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest.” Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Garcia v. Lewis 197 So. 3d 738 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    2 Cir. 6/16/99), , writ denied, 99-2129 (La.10/29/99), ; Baumeister v. Plunkett, supra; (La.App.
  • Kenneth Dale Kelly, Et Ux. v. Boise Building Solutions La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    oyee the “tortious conduct of the [employee must be] so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer‟s business, as compared with conduct instituted by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer‟s interest.” Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Kelly v. Boise Building Solutions 92 So. 3d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    the tortious acts of its employee the “tortious conduct of the [employee must be] so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct instituted by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest.” Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Bryan Bordelon v. Anthony Stafford La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    ee the “tortious conduct of the [employee must be] so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conducted instituted by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest.” Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Bordelon v. Stafford 1 So. 3d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    he tortious acts of its employee the “tortious conduct of the [employee must be] so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conducted instituted by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest.” Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Latiolais v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INS. CO. 949 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Hilda Latiolais v. State Farm Mutual Auto ins.co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    loyee the “tortious conduct of the [employee must be] so closely connected in time, place and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct instituted by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest.” Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.
  • Payne v. Tonti Realty Corp. 888 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    the tortious acts of its employee the “tortious conduct of the [employee must be] so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct instituted by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest.” Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Stacy v. Minit Oil Change, Inc. 874 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • Swartz v. McNabb 830 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    the tortious acts of its employee the “tortious conduct of the [employee must be] so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct instituted by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest.” Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Guy v. Mitchell 810 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Culver v. Brown 803 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Baumeister, supra; (La.App.
  • Wearrien v. Viverette 803 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Young v. First National Bank of Shreveport 794 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Dickerson v. Piccadilly Restaurants, Inc. 785 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Eichelberger v. Sidney 771 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Ryback v. Belle 753 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    5th Cir.9/17/97), , writ denied, 97-2571 (La.12/19/97), and Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Watkins v. International Service Systems 741 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Taylor v. Shoney's, Inc. 726 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Dunmiles v. ST. CHARLES PARISH REC. DEPT. 726 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Pye v. Insulation Technologies, Inc. 700 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    See Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Varnado v. Department of Employment and Training 687 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Baumeister v. Plunkett, 673 So.2d at 996 ; Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Baumeister v. Plunkett 673 So. 2d 994 La. 1996
    Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Patterson v. Al Copeland Enterprises, Inc. 667 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    The co-employee was not found to be in the course and scope of employment at the time of the assault of a fellow employee in *1193 the following cases: Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Slocum-Stevens Ins. Agency, Inc. v. International Risk Consultants, Inc. 666 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    7/5/94), ; Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Wright v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. 662 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    LRS 23:1032(B), as construed in Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., writ denied.
  • Latullas v. State 658 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Henry v. Taco Tio, Inc. 606 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Art. 966; Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc. 591 So. 2d 708 La. 1992
    Prior report: La.App., .