DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 49 So. 2d 852.

77 citing documents.

  • Efren Galindo v. Jose Castillo, J&T Poultry Services, LLC, and House of Raeford Farms of Louisiana, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
    technically fired by his own employer, J&T, the ultimate say-so was Raeford’s; (2) Raeford fired him for violating Raeford’s no-fighting policy; (3, 4) Raeford controlled the time and place of J&T’s work; (5) Raeford monitored and directed J&T’s work; (7) chicken catching is “part of the business” or “so closely related thereto as to become an integral part,” So.
  • Everett v. Rubicon, Inc. 938 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
  • Jackson v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 897 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Allen v. EXHIBITION HALL AUTHORITY 842 So. 2d 373 La. 2003
    23:1032, when considered with § 1061, established the corresponding tort immunity for principals, , (1950), but this immunity was not codified until the statute was amended in 1976.
  • Anthony Crane Rental, LP v. Fruge 833 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    3 Cir. 12/20/00) , writ denied, 01-880 (La.5/25/01), , we said: Although we agree with the trial court that the legislature's intent in 1989 was to overrule Berry [v. Holston Well Service, Inc., (1986) ] and revert back to the integral relation test as propounded by Thibodaux [v. Sun Oil Co.], , [(1950)], we feel constrained to follow the supreme court's decision in Kirkland [v. Riverwood International USA, Inc., (1996)] .
  • Emery v. Owens-Corporation 813 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    23:1061 in effect when he was exposed to asbestos at the oil refinery and, more precisely, , (1950)(enunciating the liberal "integral relationship" standard of the scope of the statutory employment relationship).
  • Lemaire v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. 793 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In brief, CIBA-GEIGY asserts that in concluding CIBA-GEIGY was not Lemaire's statutory employer, the trial court erroneously applied the three-tiered analysis set forth in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., rather than the integral relation test articulated in *344 , (1950).
  • Applegarth v. Transamerican Refining Corp. 781 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    (1950), and subsequent case law which held that new construction was not an integral part of the principal's business.
  • Clavier v. Lay Down Service, Inc. 776 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    (1950), the supreme court first pronounced the integral relation test for determining whether the work of the contractor was part of the principal's trade, business, or occupation.
  • Moore v. Safeway, Inc. 700 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    [10] See the "integral relation" , (1950).
  • Kirkland v. Riverwood International USA, Inc. 694 So. 2d 890 La. 1996
    hat: (1) the plain language of the amended statute compels a result contrary to that reached by the majority and (2) whatever the deficiencies in the foregoing argument, the legislative intent in passing the amendment to LSA-RS 23:1061 was to abolish Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and its factors and reinstate the “integral relation” , (1950).
  • Byrom v. City of Lafayette 682 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    3 Cir.1992), have suggested in dicta that the 1989 , (1950), thus returning to a more liberal standard for granting principals tort immunity....
  • Kirkland v. Riverwood Intern. USA, Inc. 681 So. 2d 329 La. 1996
    (1950), without any discussion of the absence in Section 1061 or 1032 of any grant of tort immunity to a principal, or of a principal's apparent ability to avoid any compensation liability, or of the question whether immunity should be conferred only if a principal actually pays compensation, this court
  • Moore v. RLCC Technologies, Inc. 668 So. 2d 1135 La. 1996
    Without any discussion of the absence in Section 1032 or 1061 of any suggestion of a legislative intent to grant tort immunity to a principal, or of a principal's apparent ability to avoid any compensation liability, or of the question whether immunity should only apply if the principal actually pays compensation, , (1950) rendered a judgment maintaining an exception of no cause of action and limiting the plaintiff's remedy against the principal to compensation under the Act.
  • Griffin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 662 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    In 1950, our Supreme Court established the “integral relation”
  • Thomas v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVELOPMENT 662 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Therein, we discussed the conclusory nature and predictable outcome typically produced by the so-called *793 "integral relation" , (1950).
  • Trahan v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS 663 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    3 Cir.1992), have suggested in dicta that the 1989 , (1950), thus returning to a more liberal standard for granting principals tort immunity.
  • Rodgers v. James River II, Inc. 661 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Another panel of that Court declared that the factors enunciated in Berry were no longer the appropriate test for determining whether a statutory employment relationship exists and that the "current criteria for making such a determination is the ` , "
  • Kirkland v. Riverwood Intern. USA, Inc. 658 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Blouin v. Shell Oil Co. 656 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    As a result, the cases hold that we have returned to “a , ”.
  • Favron v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 649 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Vickers v. Cajun Concrete Services, Inc. 634 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    The court in Harris concluded that the 1989 , (1950).
  • Dupre v. Exxon Pipeline Co. 638 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    23:1061, the Louisiana legislature chose to return to a
  • Picard v. Zeit Exploration Co., Inc. 636 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    23:1061, applicable at the time of plaintiff's alleged injury, overruled Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and mandated a return to the "integral relation" , (1950).
  • Deal v. International Paper Co. 632 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    Rather, the current standard for making such a determination is the "integral relation" , (1950).
  • Hanks v. Shell Oil Co. 631 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    23:1061, the Louisiana legislature chose to return to a
  • Moore v. Crystal Oil Co. 626 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    For many years, the standard for determining whether the contract work was part of the principal's trade, business or occupation was the "integral relation" , (1950).
  • Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc. 583 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    1st Cir.1949), affirmed, , (1950).
  • Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc. 583 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    1st Cir.1949), affirmed, , (1950).
  • Howard v. Georgia Pacific Corp. 583 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Mouton v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 545 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    STATUTORY EMPLOYMENT Almost 40 years ago, , (1950), the Louisiana Supreme Court announced the doctrine of the principal’s immunity in tort from claims by employees of their contractors.
  • Jackson v. Louisiana Power & Light 510 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Although its purpose was self-evident, , (1950), this Court developed the doctrine of tort immunity for principals (i.e. statutory employers) vis-a-vis their contractor’s employees (i.e. statutory employees).
  • Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc. 488 So. 2d 934 La. 1986
    Although its purpose was self-evident, , (1950), this Court developed the doctrine of tort immunity for principals (i.e. statutory employers) vis-a-vis their contractor's employees (i.e. statutory employees).
  • Rowe v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. 471 So. 2d 226 La. 1985
    (1950), this court distorted the original intent of the Act by using Section 1061 to grant tort immunity to a principal (an employer who contracted out part of the work of his business to an intermediary).
  • Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc. 467 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Lewis v. Exxon Corp. 441 So. 2d 192 La. 1983
    (1950), quoting Horrell v. Gulf & Valley Cotton Oil Co., 15 La.App.
  • Smith v. AMF Tuboscope, Inc. 442 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    23:1032; rehearing granted June 24, 1983; , (1950); (La.App.
  • Melancon v. Tassin Amphibious Equipment Corp. 427 So. 2d 932 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    The first pronunciation of a , (1950).
  • Honeycutt v. International Paper Co. 421 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    380 , (1951); , (1950); Traylor v. Shell Oil Company, supra; Redler v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, Inc., Sisk v. Insurance Company of North America, supra; (La.App.
  • Lewis v. Exxon Corp. 417 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Traylor v. Shell Oil Co. 400 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    See, , (1950); *346 Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co., 219 La.
  • Rogers v. PAYNE AND KELLER OF LOUISIANA, INC. 392 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Lushute v. Diesi 354 So. 2d 179 La. 1978
    (1950); Ball v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., (Orl.App.1959), and Horrell v. Gulf & Valley Cotton Oil Co., 15 La.App.
  • Jones v. Francis Romero, Inc. 345 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    (1950); Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co., 219 La.
  • Wofford v. Dow Chemical Co. 335 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    23:1061, 23:1101, 23:1032; Thibodaux et al. v. Sun Oil Co. et al., La.App., , affirmed , .
  • McBeth v. Salvation Army 314 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    Spanja v. Thibodaux Boiler Works, La.App., .
  • Jones v. Insurance Company of North America 303 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    23:1031 et seq.; , 49 So.
  • Brown v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. 289 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    "This Court has applied the holding and rules announced in the cases of Stansburg v. Magnolia Petroleum Company [La.App.], ; Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Company [ ], ; Allen v. United States Fire Insurance Company [La.App.], ; Arnold v. Stupp Corporation [La.App.], and the cases cited therein, to the facts of this case and is compelled to hold that plaintiffs cannot recover in tort."
  • Reeves v. Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company 282 So. 2d 503 La. 1973
    (1950) and Horrell v. Gulf & Valley Cotton Oil Co., Inc., 15 La.App., 603 , 131 So.
  • Flores v. Woodard-Walker Lumber Co. 272 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Applying the rationale of Arnold v. Shell Oil Co., 419 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1969), , (1950), and Allen v. United States Fire Ins.