DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hymes v. Monroe MacK Sales, 682 So. 2d 871.

25 citing documents.

  • Stanley Shreve v. Bio-Lab, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
  • Irving Caldwell v. West Fraser (South), Inc. and Trumball Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
  • Johnson v. Manitowoc Co. 256 So. 3d 463 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    App. 2 Cir. 10/30/96), , the court explained: The expression "characteristic of and peculiar to," as used in § 1031.1 B, does not mean that the disease occurs only in persons engaged in the particular employment and not otherwise found among the general public.
  • Atkins v. DG Foods 125 So. 3d 530 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    App.2d Cir.3/5/03), , writ denied, 2003-0978 (La.5/30/03), ; Hymes v. Monroe Mack Sales, 28,-768 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), .
  • Carrodine v. PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORP. 4 So. 3d 1020 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    2d Cir.10/30/96), , the court explained: The expression “characteristic of and peculiar to,” as used in § 1031.1 B [of the Workers’ Compensation Law], does not mean that the disease occurs only in persons engaged in the particular employment and not otherwise found among the general public.
  • Clara Evans v. Hampton Inn La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Evans v. Hampton Inn 6 So. 3d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Chassion v. Cingular Wireless 943 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    2 Cir. 10/30/96), (emphasis added) (case citation omitted), the court interpreted the above italicized language as follows: The expression "characteristic of and peculiar to," as used in § 1031.1 B, does not mean that the disease occurs only in persons engaged in the particular employment and not otherwise found *595 among the gen
  • Brenda Chaisson v. Cingular Wireless La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    2 Cir. 10/30/96), (emphasis added) (case citation omitted), the court interpreted the above italicized language as follows: The expression “characteristic of and peculiar to,” as used in § 1031.1 B, does not mean that the disease occurs only in persons engaged in the particular employment and not othe
  • Rose A. Rose v. Maison Deville Care Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Rose v. Maison Deville Care Center 927 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Kerry Anderson Doumite v. Kvhp - Fox 29 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    2 Cir. 10/30/96), the second circuit reasoned that the disease at issue “must originate from conditions in the employment that result in a hazard that distinguishes the employment in character from the general run of occupations.” As I do not find this portion of La.R.S.
  • Doumite v. KVHP-FOX 29 884 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    2 Cir. 10/30/96), , the second circuit reasoned that the disease at issue "must originate from conditions in the employment that result in a hazard that distinguishes the employment in character from the general run of occupations."
  • Fite v. Louisiana Title Co. 859 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Hymes v. Monroe Mack Sales, 28,768 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), ; Price v. City of New Orleans, 95-1851 (La.App.
  • Fite v. Louisiana Title Co. 852 So. 2d 983 La. 2003
    Citing as support for the premise that an expert must testify at the compensation hearing, (La.
  • Ball v. Wendy's Intern., Inc. 839 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • Moore v. Miciotto 836 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Hymes v. Monroe Mack Sales, 28,768 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), ; Price v. City of New Orleans, 95-1851 (La.App.
  • Lee v. Schumpert 836 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    2 Cir. 10/30/96), ; Price v. City of New Orleans, 95-1851 (La.App.
  • Jones v. Ruskin Mfg. 834 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Cox, supra, citing Billington v. General Motors, Corp., 31,585 (La.App.2d Cir. 2/24/99), ; Hymes v. Monroe Mack Sales, 28,768 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), .
  • Cox v. Roofing Supply, Inc. 825 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    App. 2 Cir. 10/30/96), .
  • Myles v. Printpack, Inc. 806 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Hymes v. Monroe Mack Sales, 28,768 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), .
  • Edwards v. Sawyer Industrial Plastics, Inc. 739 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    23:1031.1(A); Hymes v. Monroe Mack Sales, 28,768 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), .
  • Crotwell v. Holloway Sportswear 740 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Collins v. General Motors Corp. 736 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, 96-2840 (La.07/07/97), ; Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 93-1698 (La.01/14/94), ; Hymes v. Monroe Mack Sales, 28,768 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), .
  • Billington v. General Motors Corp. 728 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    2 Cir. 10/30/96), , and citations therein.