DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 344 So. 2d 1353.

59 citing documents.

  • Danella Taylor Sonnier v. Diversified Healthcare-Lake Charles, LLC D/B/A Lake Charles Care Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    In Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., this court recognized the Abuse of Rights doctrine.
  • Jonathan L. Woods v. Preis, Plc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., (La.
  • Brady v. Pirner 261 So. 3d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    Art. 1893, Plainol, Volume 2, Section 1269, p. 720; Morse v. J. Ray McDermott and Co., Inc. , (La.
  • Ralph J. Hanks v. Louisiana Companies La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    The basis of Hanks’ argument was the 2004 opinion rendered by this court in Williams, which cited with approval the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.
  • Hanks v. Louisiana Companies 205 So. 3d 1048 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    The basis of Hanks’ argument was the 2004 opinion rendered by this court in Williams, , which cited with approval the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.
  • Wadick v. General Heating & Air Conditioning, LLC 145 So. 3d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    14 As the Louisiana Supreme Court has held, “[i]t is not necessary that the entire agreement containing the stipulation against public order or policy be declared null.” Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., see also Litvinoff, 52 Tul.
  • Cottonport Bank v. Garrett 111 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., this court recognized the Abuse of Rights doctrine.
  • Jared Pavlu v. Global Data Systems, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    art. 7; Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
  • Matthew Newsom v. Global Data Systems, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    art. 7; Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
  • Newsom v. Global Data Systems, Inc. 107 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    art. 7; Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
  • Nola 180 v. Harrah's Operating Co. 94 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Civ.Code art. 2315 for general negligence, under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, and under the “abuse of rights” doctrine, see Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.
  • Nola 180 v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC 91 So. 3d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    This doctrine, which was first promulgated in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., applies only when one of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the predominant motive for exercise of the right is to cause harm; (2) there is no serious or legitimate motive for exercise of the right; |n(3) the exercise of the right violates moral rules, good faith, or elementary fairness; or (4) the
  • Williams v. Dutchtown Pharmacy, L.L.C. 24 So. 3d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Citing the Louisiana Supreme Court in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., , 1359 n. 10 (La.1976), Williams points out “[t]he courts of this state have noted that forfeitures of wages are not favored under our law.” This reasoning is consistent with La.
  • Williams v. Dolgencorp, Inc. 888 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    This decision is an outgrowth of the Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., which was based both on the public policy of the state as *263 expressed in R.S.
  • Angelina Williams v. Dolgencorp, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    This decision is an outgrowth of the Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., (La.
  • Wood v. Flexcare & Insurance System, Inc. 847 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., the court determined that a forfeiture provision in an employee retirement plan was against public policy.
  • Hamilton v. Anco Insulation, Inc. 844 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    The Supreme Court in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., (quoting Plainol, Civil Law Treatise Volume 2, Section 1269, p. 720) stated that such a condition within a contract annuls the entire agreement only "to the extent to which the agreement depends on it.
  • Becht v. Morgan Buildings & Spas, Inc. 822 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    art. 7; Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
  • Picard v. Vermilion Parish School Bd. 742 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    In Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., the Supreme Court held that a forfeiture clause in the employer's profit-sharing plan was manifestly unjust where the employer's unilateral act, discharging the employee without cause, prevented fulfillment of the condition required for the employee's rights to vest in the benefits.
  • Fairbanks v. Tulane University 731 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    In Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., the Supreme Court again held that an employer's contributions to a profit-sharing plan was in the nature of delayed compensation to the employee for his or her services rendered.
  • Henderson Implement Co., Inc. v. Langley 707 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc. 1370 (La.1976).
  • Christian v. Fontenot 672 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
  • AMCOM of Louisiana, Inc. v. Battson 666 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    on rehearing, citing Planiol, Civil Law Treatise, Part I, Nos. 288-295 (La.
  • Owens & Sons, Inc. v. Casey 659 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    THE ABUSE OF RIGHTS DOCTRINE: Although the Louisiana Supreme Court employed a similar analysis in earlier decisions, the abuse of rights doctrine was recognized expressly in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., (La.
  • Hemmans v. State Farm Ins. Co. 653 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    The doctrine was most recently applied by a Louisiana court in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., wherein the court found that an employer, by declining without serious or legitimate interest, to pay an employee the remaining portions of the employee's compensation by terminating him without cause, had abused its rights.
  • American Waste v. Sanitary Landfill Com'n 578 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    The doctrine of abuse of rights was expressly recognized by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
  • Jarrell v. Carter 577 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
  • Jones v. New Orleans Legal Assistance Corp. 568 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., Higgins Oil & Fuel Company v. Guaranty Oil Company, 145 La.
  • Kok v. Harris 563 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    The abuse of rights analysis has been employed in Louisiana courts in early cases such as: Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., Onorato v. Maestri, 173 La.
  • Wynne v. NEW ORLEANS CLERKS & CHECKERS UNION, LOCAL 1497 550 So. 2d 1352 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    the court held that an agreement which prevented an employee from recovering under his employer's Supplemental Compensation Plan was against public order or policy citing La.R.S.
  • Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Nails 549 So. 2d 826 La. 1989
    Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., on rehearing.
  • Fidelity Bank and Trust Co. v. Hammons 540 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the doctrine of abuse of rights as follows: This Court expressly recognized the doctrine of abuse of rights in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., and has employed a similar analysis in earlier decisions.
  • Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Nails 539 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    In Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., this court recognized the Abuse of Rights doctrine.
  • Dore v. WHC Lease Service, Inc. 528 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    See Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
  • New Hope Gardens, Ltd. v. Lattin 530 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Although the civilian doctrine of abuse of rights has been sparingly invoked in Louisiana, it has been expressly recognized by our Supreme Court in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
  • Gilvin v. Metro. Prop. & Liability Ins. 519 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    As stated in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., at 1369: ...
  • Truschinger v. Pak 513 So. 2d 1151 La. 1987
    In Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., this court recognized the Abuse of Rights doctrine.
  • Muslow v. AG Edwards & Sons, Inc. 509 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    The abuse of rights doctrine was recognized by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Company, Inc.
  • State Bank of Commerce v. Demco of La., Inc. 483 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.
  • Cornet v. Cahn Electric Co. 481 So. 2d 1018 La. 1986
    In Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 2 we observed that La.R.S.
  • Lee v. Katz and Bestoff, Inc. 479 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    In Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., the court held that a forfeiture clause in the employer's profit-sharing plan was manifestly unjust where the unilateral act of the employer prevented the fulfillment of the condition to the employee's receipt of the benefits.
  • Breland v. Louisiana Hospital Services, Inc. 468 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., Maurin-Ogden-1978 Pinhook *1221 (La.App.
  • Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Barnes 451 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., Housing Auth.
  • Sanborn v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. 448 So. 2d 91 La. 1984
    Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., Onorato v. Maestri, 173 La.
  • Tompkins v. Schering Corp. 441 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    which addressed the issue of whether a former employee who was terminated without cause due to the state of the economy was entitled to recover amounts due under the company's supplemental compensation plan which contained a forfeiture clause.
  • Cornet v. Cahn Electric Co. 434 So. 2d 1052 La. 1983
    In 1977 this court decided the case of Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
  • Hinton v. Owensby & Kritikos, Inc. 425 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    In Seifert, supra, this court held that the Supreme Court case of Morse v. J. Ray Me Dermott & Co., is not controlling in situations where the individual was discharged because of fault on his part.
  • Cornet v. Cahn Electric Co. 424 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    The employer urges that we should reconsider and overrule Langford , because we did not have the opportunity to do so on a rehearing of that case, and because we “seriously misconstrued the rationale and holding of Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., The employer does not argue here, as it did in Langford that the bonuses paid were not earned, but apparently now concedes that the bonuses, from which Cornet and Langford made the required 70 percent contribution to the plan, were earned by,
  • Lambert v. Maryland Cas. Co. 418 So. 2d 553 La. 1982
    See Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., Cueto-Rua, "Abuse of Rights", 35 La.L.Rev.
  • T. D. Bickham Corp. v. Hebert 413 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.