DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Horns v. Brown, 148 So. 2d 607.

58 citing documents.

  • New Orleans Private Patrol Service, Inc. v. Shorts 908 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    (1963), quoting 48 Am.Jur., § 38, p. 541, the Supreme Court initially defined the term “misconduct” as “an act of wanton or wilful [sic] disregard of the employer’s interest, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right
  • Savoie v. Labove 692 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Emke v. Mouton 617 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Thibeaux v. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center Inc. 591 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    (1963).’ ” Franklin v. Whitfield, supra; (La.App.
  • French v. Whitfield 561 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Misconduct has been defined as “an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer’s interest, [or] a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules ...” , (1963).
  • Martin Mills, Inc. v. Dept. of Employment SEC. 541 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • Ford v. Patin 534 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Marine Drilling Co. v. Whitfield 535 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Romano v. Whitfield 535 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Franklin v. Whitfield 534 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Canty v. Administrator of Louisiana Office of Employment Security 517 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Jackson v. ADM'R DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT SEC. 511 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    2d Cir. 1985); , (1963).
  • Gallien v. Administrator of the Office of Employment Security, Department of Labor 511 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Sell v. Employment SEC. 499 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Ward v. Office of Employment SEC. 493 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Carter v. Administrator of the Office of Employment Security, Department of Labor 487 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    (1963); Black v. Sumrall, supra.
  • Thibodeaux v. Louisiana Office of Employment Security 458 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Sampson v. Admin'r, La. Office of Emp. SEC. 439 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Freelow v. Sumrall 425 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Dawkins v. Sumrall 424 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Wyre v. Lockwood 402 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    iolation of the employer’s rules; a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee; or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful interest, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer.” , (1963); (La.App.
  • Vernon v. Seitz 399 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1963); (4th La.App.1969); (2nd La.App.1972)."
  • Allen v. Sumrall 398 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    2nd Cir. 1972); Horns v. Brown , (1963); Payne v. Antoine's Restaurant (La.App.
  • Morgan v. Lockwood 395 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1963); Payne v. Antoine’s Restaurant, (La.
  • Jacobs v. Gerace 381 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    NOTES [1] , (1963) and cases cited therein.
  • Simmons v. Gerace 377 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Rothbard v. Gerace 354 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Morris v. Gerace 353 So. 2d 986 La. 1977
  • Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Doyal 353 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    The phrase “misconduct connected with the employment” , (1963), where the Supreme Court stated at 148 So.2d pages 608 and 609: “.
  • Pilgrim Manor Nursing Home, Inc. v. Gerace 337 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    2nd Cir. 1972); Horns v. Brown , (1963); Payne v. Antonie's Restaurant (La.App.
  • Robertson v. Gerace 335 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1963); Payne v. Antoine’s Restaurant, (La.App.
  • Louisiana Hospital Service, Inc. v. Bookter 317 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (1963); (4th La.App.1969); (2nd La.App.
  • Shelton v. Doyal 316 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Bridges v. Western Electric Co. 304 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
  • Piggly Wiggly Operators' Warehouse, Inc. v. Doyal 297 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    23:1601(2), which, so far as it is applicable, provides: “An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: 4c ifc # 4* 4* if* “(2) If the administrator finds that he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his employment.” “Disqualifying misconduct” and by the Supreme Court in the same case ( , [1963]).
  • Jones v. Doyal 298 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    (1963); (4th La.App.1969); (2nd La.App.
  • Southern Pacific Transport Company v. Doyal 289 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    * * *" , at p. 609 , as follows: * * * "`Misconduct within the meaning of an unemployment compensation act excluding from its benefits an employee discharged for misconduct must be an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of st
  • Atkins v. Doyal 274 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    (1963); (4th La.App.1969); (2nd La.
  • Landry v. Department of Employment Security 272 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
  • Heard v. Doyal 259 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
  • Jackson v. Doyal 231 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    The court then cited one of its earlier cases and stated the applicable law as follows: “ , , this Court, in considering whether an employee who ‘permitted’ garnishments against his wages in violation of his employer’s policy was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation * * for misconduct connected with his employment * * *’, cited approvingly the statement in 48 Am.
  • Rankin v. Doyal 223 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
  • Payne v. Antoine's Restaurant 217 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    (1963); , La.App.2d Cir. (1967); , La.App.2d Cir. (1963); , La.App.3d Cir. (1961).
  • Jackson v. Doyal 198 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
    (1963) quoted with approval the reference to the phrase "misconduct connected with the employment" as set forth in 48 Am.Jur.
  • Hall v. Doyal 191 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
  • Ross v. Holiday Inn 191 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    our Supreme Court, quoting from 48 Am.Jur., Social Security Unemployment Insurance, Sec.
  • Distinguished Campbell v. Doyal 190 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Grimble v. Brown 171 So. 2d 653 La. 1965
    this Court, in considering whether an employee who "permitted” garnishments against his wages in violation of his employer’s policy was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation “ * * * for misconduct connected with his employment * * * ”, cited approvingly the statement in 48 Am.Jur.
  • Gardere v. Brown 170 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    we find the following language which we quote with approval inasmuch as we find it clearly applicable to the issue before us, to-wit: "This is the first time that the aforestated question has come before this court, although the matter of a proper construction of the phrase `misconduct connected with
  • Smith v. Brown 162 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    23:1471, disqualifying misconduct requires an intentional or deliberate wrongful act in substantial disregard of the employer’s interest — it does not ordinarily include incidents affecting the employment relationship which arise or result from circumstances beyond the employee’s control, , , such as the present employee’s involuntary absence due to incarceration for actions not connected with his employment.