DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Reeves v. Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company, 282 So. 2d 503.

57 citing documents.

  • Everett v. Rubicon, Inc. 938 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Co., (it is not the business practice of an oil company to engage a contractor to construct a new coking unit at its refinery).
  • Arcadian Corp. v. Olin Corp. 824 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    The language in instruction number 9 is taken from Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company et al.
  • Applegarth v. Transamerican Refining Corp. 781 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    Co., which held that an oil company's engaging a contractor to construct a new petroleum coking unit at its refinery was not part of its business operations.
  • Kirkland v. Riverwood Intern. USA, Inc. 681 So. 2d 329 La. 1996
    Co., held that an oil company's engaging a contractor to construct a new petroleum coking unit at its refinery was not part of its business operations.
  • Richard v. Teague 636 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Lewis, supra; Benson [ v. Seagraves, ], supra; Barnes, [ v. Sun Oil Co., ], supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Doty v. Union Pacific Railroad 613 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Graves v. Lou Ana Foods, Inc. 604 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Lewis, supra; Benson [ v. Seagraves, ], supra; Barnes, [ v. Sun Oil Co., ], supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • DeWoody v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 604 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    1983)], supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & *97 Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Bowens v. General Motors Corp. 596 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    1978) ], supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Miller v. Louisiana Gas Service Co. 601 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    Co., or must supersede the original negligence, Mizell v. State, through La.
  • Fountain v. Central Louisiana Elec. Co. 578 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    1978) ], supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Tabor v. Doctors Memorial Hosp. 563 So. 2d 233 La. 1990
    Hessifer v. Southern Equipment, Inc., (La.App.
  • Mouton v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 545 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Lewis, supra; Benson, supra; Barnes, supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Benoit v. Grey Wolf Drilling, Inc. 520 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Lewis, supra; Benson, supra; Barnes, supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Lewis v. Modular Quarters 508 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Lewis, supra ; Benson, supra ; Barnes, supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Recatto v. Bayou Steel Corp. 508 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Lewis, supra; Benson [v. Seagraves, ], supra; Barnes, supra [v. Sun Oil Co., ]; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Chauvin v. Gulf Coast Minerals, Inc. 509 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Lewis, supra ; Benson, supra ; Barnes, supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Jackson v. Louisiana Power & Light 510 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Lewis, supra; Benson, supra; Barnes, supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Sparacello v. Andrews 501 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Reeves v. Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company Theunissen v. Guidry 244 La.
  • Teague v. Sawyer Drilling Co. 499 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Lewis, supra ; Benson, supra ; Barnes, supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc. 488 So. 2d 934 La. 1986
    Lewis, supra ; Benson, supra ; Barnes, supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Simon v. Hooker Chemical Corp. 489 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Generally, in order for a work or project to be within a principal’s trade, business or occupation, it must be routine or customary, Benson v. Seagraves, 436 So.2d *374 525, 529 (La.1983); Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., -08 (La.1973), or some other type of activity which is necessary for the principal’s day-to-day operations.
  • Teague v. Sawyer Drilling Co. 485 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Generally, in order for a work or project to be within a principal’s trade, business or occupation, it must be routine or customary, Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., -08 (La.1973), or some other type of activity which is necessary for the principal’s day-to-day operations.
  • Turner v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 471 So. 2d 709 La. 1985
  • Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc. 467 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Generally, in order for a work or project to be within a principal's trade, business or occupation, it must be routine or customary, Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., -08 (La.1973), or some other type of activity which is necessary for the principal's day-to-day operations.
  • Holmes v. St. Charles General Hosp. 465 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    1983); Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., -08 (La.
  • Brown v. Ebasco Services, Inc. 461 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    Generally, in order for a work or project to be within a principal's trade, business or occupation, it must be routine or customary, Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., -08 (La.1973), or some other type of activity which is necessary for the principal's day-to-day operations.
  • Quattlebaum v. Hy-Reach Equipment Inc. 453 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Boudreaux v. Exxon Co., USA 451 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Butler v. Home Ins. Co. 448 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    As the Supreme Court stated in Lewis : Generally, in order for a work or project to be within a principal's trade, business, or occupation, it must be routine or customary, or some other type of activity which is necessary for the principal's day-to-day operation.
  • Lewis v. Exxon Corp. 441 So. 2d 192 La. 1983
    Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Boudreaux v. Exxon Co., USA 441 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • Ill. Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. City of New Orleans 426 So. 2d 1385 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Dixie Machine Welding and Metal Works, (La.App.
  • Melancon v. Tassin Amphibious Equipment Corp. 427 So. 2d 932 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    expressed another test to determine whether the work performed by a contractor's employee is part of the principal's trade, business or occupation.
  • Braud v. Dixie MacH. Welding & Metal Works 423 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
  • Lewis v. Exxon Corp. 417 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    On the question of "statutory employer", or the so-called "Section Six defense", is controlling; (La.App.
  • Brown v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 407 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Hebert v. Union Oil Co. of California 405 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Thompson v. South Central Bell Telephone Co. 402 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    the construction of a “coking unit” was held not to be the regular business of the owner and operator of an oil refinery and chemical plant where it was not the owner’s business to engage in new construction of this type or magnitude and it had never designed a coking unit or any comparable plant.
  • Roberts v. Russo 400 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    2091 and 2324; Ferguson v. Lankford, La., ; Reeves v. Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company, La., ; Jones v. Maestri, 170 La.
  • Mizell v. State, Through La. Dept. of Hwys. 398 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Blount v. Exxon Corp. 395 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Waller v. Farmland Industries, Inc. 392 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Moses v. Vulcan Materials Co. 388 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Turberville v. Georgia Pac. Chemical Co. 385 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Rapattoni v. Commercial Union Assur. Co. 378 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    *957 the Court stated that the test was whether the work plaintiff was engaged in was customarily done by the principal employer or other employers similarly situated.
  • Ferguson v. Lankford 374 So. 2d 1205 La. 1979
    Co., Jones v. Maestri, 170 La.
  • Blanchard v. Engine & Gas Compressor Services, Inc. 371 So. 2d 265 La. 1979
    See Reeves v. Louisiana *266 & Arkansas Ry., La.Sup.Ct.
  • Blanchard v. Engine & Gas Compressor Services, Inc. 371 So. 2d 265 La. 1979
    See Reeves v. Louisiana *266 & Arkansas Ry., La.Sup.Ct.
  • Boudreaux v. Boudreaux 369 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Co., Kelly v. United States Fid.