Cited by

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

261 citing documents.

Spears v. Jones 807 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Wearrien v. Viverette 803 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
On February 22, 2001, the plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion for summary judgment and also filed his own motion for summary judgment
Quebedeaux v. Dow Chemical Co. 809 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
where a supervisor became dissatisfied with an employee, fired him, ordered him to leave the workplace and escorted him to the door.
Craft v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 799 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
set forth the circumstances which must be evaluated in determining whether an employee is acting within the course and scope of employment.
Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Fasullo v. Finley 782 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Lee v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. 778 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Felix v. Briggs of Oakwood, Inc., 99-721 at 4 (La.App.
Lyons v. Bechtel Corp. 788 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
sets forth the test for determining whether an accident occurred within the course of employment.
Dickerson v. Piccadilly Restaurants, Inc. 785 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Griffin v. Kmart Corp. 776 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Eichelberger v. Sidney 771 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
art. 2320; Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96)
Brumfield v. Coastal Cargo Co., Inc. 768 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
-18 (La.1974)(emphasis ours).
Johnson v. Templeton 768 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Affeltranger-Cheramie v. Zachary 757 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou 752 So. 2d 815 La. 2000
[6] With Lavergne's fault established, *820 the trial judge then determined that, (La.
Felix v. Briggs of Oakwood, Inc. 750 So. 2d 1091 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 673 So.2d at 996 ; 218 (La.1974).
Rambo v. Webster Parish School Bd. 745 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Doe v. Louisiana Mun. Ass'n 746 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Crespo v. Mouton 741 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Tanner v. Reynolds Metals Co. 739 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Freeman v. Hutson 738 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Watkins v. International Service Systems 741 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Baumeister, supra ; Barto, supra .
Hubbard v. Lakeland Nursing Home 734 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Wright v. Skate Country, Inc. 734 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou 736 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
The inquiry requires the trier of fact to determine whether the employee’s tortious conduct was “so closely connected in time, place and causation to his employment-duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interests.”
Carroll v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 732 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Delphin v. Montealegre 732 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Billiot v. Terrebonne Sheriff's Office 735 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Taylor v. Shoney's, Inc. 726 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
2d Cir.1991), writ denied, (1992) ( 218 (La.1974)).
Dunmiles v. ST. CHARLES PARISH REC. DEPT. 726 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
to the matter at issue, and found no liability.
Read v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 725 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Russell v. Noullet 721 So. 2d 868 La. 1998
Kaufman v. City of New Orleans 720 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
App. 5 Cir. 11/16/94), , writ denied 94-2983 (La.2/3/95)
Hanson v. Benelli 719 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou 713 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Harrington v. La. State Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ. 714 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96)
Landry v. Fincke 714 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Nelson v. Williams 707 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Allen v. Payne & Keller Co., Inc. 710 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Washington v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 708 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Russell v. Noullet 706 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Aycock v. Jenkins Tile Co. 703 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Emoakemeh v. Southern University, 94-1194 (La.App.
Duryea v. Handy 700 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
to determine whether Handy was acting in the course of his employment with the Sheriff's office at the time of the incident, or in the course of his employment with the Gentilly Carnival Club.
Pye v. Insulation Technologies, Inc. 700 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
Maze v. Grogan 694 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Emoakemeh v. Southern University, 94 1194 (La.
Varnado v. Department of Employment and Training 687 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the following factors in holding an employer liable for an employee's actions: (1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted; (2) whether the act was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee's duties; (3) whether the act occurred on
Jackson v. Frisard 685 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Michelet v. Scheuring SEC. Services Inc. 680 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
4 Cir. 2/23/95) , , writ denied, 95-0769 (La.4/28/95)
Baumeister v. Plunkett 673 So. 2d 994 La. 1996
2d Cir.1991), writ denied, (1992) ( 218 (La.1974)).