Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite LeBrane v. Lewis, 292 So. 2d 216.

261 citing documents.

Johnson v. Littleton 37 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
the Louisiana Su *547 preme Court articulated four factors in holding an employer liable for its supervisor’s actions in stabbing a fellow employee: (1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted; (2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee’s duties; (
Drummond v. Fakouri 30 So. 3d 111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
LeBrane v. Lewis, *117 Ellender, 965 So.2d at 901 .
State v. Brown 26 So. 3d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 3 (La.5/21/96), , Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353, p. 4 (La.7/5/94)
Truell Holloway v. City of Oberlin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Holloway v. City of Oberlin 21 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
WEISHAR v. Kim 15 So. 3d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Savoy v. Harris 20 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Tonia Sellers, Etc. v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
T.S. v. Rapides Parish School Board 11 So. 3d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
McNamara v. Augustino Bros., Inc. 13 So. 3d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
applies to the facts of this case.
Wakefield v. Kyle 12 So. 3d 468 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Garcia v. Furnace and Tube Service, Inc., *473 40,517 (La.App.2d Cir.1/27/06), .
Wolfe v. TOWN OF HOMER 11 So. 3d 39 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Scott Hargrave, Et Ux. v. Cecil J. Delaughter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Hargrave v. Delaughter 10 So. 3d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Davis v. Green 5 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
For the employer to be vicariously liable, the employee’s tortious conduct must be “so closely connected in *297 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.” Woolard v. Atkinson, supra.
Aucoin v. Rochel 5 So. 3d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Bryan Bordelon v. Anthony Stafford La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
2 Cir. 1991), writ denied, (1992) ( 218 (La.1974)).
Bordelon v. Stafford 1 So. 3d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
2 Cir.1991), writ denied, (1992) ( 218 (La.1974)).
Smith v. Babin 966 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Henly v. Phillips Abita Lumber Co. 971 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
218 n. 4 and 219 (La.1974).
Ellender v. Neff Rental, Inc. 965 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Cowart v. Lakewood Quarters Ltd. Partnership 961 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Latiolais v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INS. CO. 949 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2d Cir.1991), writ denied, (1992) ( 218 (La.
Hilda Latiolais v. State Farm Mutual Auto ins.co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
App. 2d Cir. 1991), writ denied, (1992) ( 218 (La.
Albert v. Farm Bureau Insurance Company 940 So. 2d 620 La. 2006
Chapman v. SAFEWAY INS. CO. OF LOUISIANA 940 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
David Chapman v. Safeway Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Christopher Armand v. Jeffrey F. Lachney La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Armand v. Lachney 921 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Garcia v. Furnace and Tube Service, Inc. 921 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
the Louisiana Supreme Court articulated four factors in holding an employer liable for its supervisor's actions in stabbing a fellow employee: (1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted; (2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee's duties; (3) whe
Bourgeois v. Curry 921 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
at p. 8, 673 So.2d at 999 , citing
Albert v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co. 916 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
The supreme court, concluded that an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment when committing a tort based upon four primary considerations.
Torrence v. Lewis 905 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
four factors were considered to determine course and scope of employment: 1.
Payne v. Tonti Realty Corp. 888 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
2d Cir.1991), writ denied, (1992) ( 218 (La.1974)).
Patrick v. Poisso 882 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
the court articulated four factors in holding an employer liable for its supervisor's actions in stabbing a fellow employee: (1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted; (2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee's duties; (3) whether the act occur
Bates v. Caruso 881 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Stacy v. Minit Oil Change, Inc. 874 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
2 Cir.1991), writ denied, (1992)
Richard v. Hall 874 So. 2d 131 La. 2004
Smith v. Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Dept. 874 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
the supreme court identified four factors to consider in determining whether the employer is liable for its employee's acts: (1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted; (2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee's duties; (3) whether the act
Susan Smith v. Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Dept. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
the supreme court identified four factors to consider in determining whether the employer is liable for its employee’s acts: (1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted; (2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental to the performance of the empl
Sanborn v. Methodist Behavioral Resources Partnership 866 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
The Supreme Court analyzed the facts in Baumeister using the following four factors, to determine if the hospital were vicariously liable for the actions of the nursing supervisor: (1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted; (2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee’s duties; (3) whether the act occurred on the employer’s pr
Loria v. Petunia's Restaurant 852 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth several factors to be considered in determining whether an | ¿employee, when committing an intentional tort, was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
Menson v. Taylor 849 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Duplantis v. Dillard's Dept. Store 849 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
-18 (La.1974); Baumeister, 673 So.2d at 996 .
Black v. Stolt-Nielsen, Inc. 844 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Campbell v. Verrett 829 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Swartz v. McNabb 830 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
2d Cir.1991), writ denied, (1992) ( 218 (La.1974)).
Strain v. Williams 835 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
McDonald , 93-1353 at p. 4, 639 So.2d at 227
Bourgeois v. Allstate Insurance Co. 820 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Nelson v. Williams, 97-276 (La.App.
Guy v. Mitchell 810 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
2d Cir.1991), writ denied, Baumeister, supra ; (La.