DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lushute v. Diesi, 354 So. 2d 179.

61 citing documents.

  • Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, … La. 2025
  • Theresa Naquin v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, Covenant Christian Academy of Houma, Louisiana, and First Baptist Church of … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
  • Alba M. Zambrano Rosales Versus American Liberty Insurance Co. & Lakeside Janitorial, LLC. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
    2 Brightbill, 342 So.3d at 136-137, (La.
  • Stephen Michael Brightbill (Deceased) Versus Circuit Grand Bayou, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
  • Nicholas Knox v. Elite Protection Solutions and Willie's Chicken Shack, LLC La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
    App. 4 Cir. 10/3/18), ( (La.
  • Martinez v. Jaroslav Rames/World of Taste, LLC 245 So. 3d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Martinez v. Rames 224 So. 3d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    The issue “is a factual issue which must be determined under the circumstances of each case.” (La.
  • Explained Smith v. Moreau 222 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Mary Elizabeth Granger v. B & B Farms of Mamou, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    For an independent contractor to be covered under the “manual labor exception,” he must establish “that a substantial part of his work time is spent in manual labor in carrying out the terms of his contract with the principal and the work performed by him is part of the principal’s trade, business or occupation.”
  • Granger v. B & B Farms of Mamou, Inc. 199 So. 3d 1145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    For an independent contractor to be covered under the “manual labor exception,” he must establish “that a substantial part of his work time is spent in manual labor in carrying out the terms of his contract with the principal and the work performed by him is part of the principal’s trade, business or occupation.”
  • Maldonado-Mejia v. Eversound Kitchen & Bath, LLC 194 So. 3d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that in-order for an independent contractor to be covered under the “manual labor exception,” he must show that a substantial part of his work time is spent in manual labor in carrying out the terms of his -contract with the principal and the work performed by him is pa
  • Steinfelds v. Villarubia 53 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that in order for an independent contractor to be covered under the “manual labor exception”, he must show that a substantial part of his work time is spent in manual labor in carrying out the terms of his contract with the principal and the work performed by him is par
  • Miller v. Higginbottom 768 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that, in order for an independent contractor to be covered under the manual labor exception, he must show that a substantial part of his work time is | fispent in manual labor in carrying out the terms of his contract with the principal and the work performed by him is part
  • Bellard v. Castille 759 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    tes that independent contractors “are expressly excluded from the provisions of this Chapter unless a substantial part of the work time of an independent contractor is spent in manual labor by him in carrying out the terms of the contract, in which case the Isifldependent contractor is expressly covered by the provisions of this Chapter.” Further, the Louisiana Supreme Court, has explained that: [A]n independent contractor is covered under the workmen’s compensation law only when a substantial p
  • Rance v. Harrison Co., Inc. 737 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Faul v. Trahan 718 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    found that under La.R.S.
  • Guidry v. Gueydan Co-Op. Dryer, Inc. 706 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, held that, in order for an independent contractor to be covered under the manual labor exception, he must also show that "a substantial part of his work time is spent in manual labor in carrying out the terms of his contract with the principal and the work performed by him is a part of the principal's
  • Johnson v. Clark 710 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    The Plaintiffs argue that this provision applies only to independent contractors doing work which forms part of the principal’s “trade, business or occupation.” In support of this position they cite the supreme court’s
  • Rush v. Employers Nat. Ins. Co. 598 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Franklin v. Checker Cab Co., Inc. 572 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • Deroche v. P & L Const. Materials, Inc. 554 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    3 Cir.1977), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds
  • Pitcher v. Hydro-Kem Services, Inc. 551 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Defendants challenge the trial court's award of penalties and attorney's fees, contending they were justified in refusing to pay benefits to Mr. Pitcher because they considered him to be an independent contractor who was outside the scope of the protection of the worker's compensation scheme
  • BYLES WELDING AND TRACTOR CO. v. Butts Sales and Service, Inc. 541 So. 2d 992 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    3rd Cir.1977), modified on other grounds
  • Locker v. Wilson 536 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Norman v. Hartford Insurance Co. 532 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Fuller v. US Aircraft Ins. Group 530 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Ducote v. Albert 521 So. 2d 399 La. 1988
    *404 23:1021; see also, Dick v. Gravel Logging Co., 152 La.
  • Miller v. Atlantic Richfield Company 501 So. 2d 198 La. 1986
  • Miller v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 501 So. 2d 198 La. 1986
  • Rogers v. D'AUBIN 498 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Moreland v. Steaveans 496 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    The test is whether claimant spent a substantial amount of his time engaged in manual labor in work that was part of his principal trade, business or occupation Lushute Vs. Diesi
  • Miller v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 499 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    23:1035; Brown v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, (La.
  • Pickering v. Hercules Inc. 486 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Charles General Hospital, supra, the plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor
  • Bonstill v. Goldsberry Operating Co. 478 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    The wording of this particular provision has remained unchanged [1] where the Supreme Court interpreted it stating: "By Act No. 179 of 1948, the legislature adopted a new definitional provision with respect to independent contractors which extended workmen's compensation benefits under limited circumstances to this class of person.
  • McCorkle v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 457 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    In a tort suit by an injured employee of a contractor, the principal bears the burden of proving that the work being performed was part of its trade, business or occupation
  • Flint v. Rockwood Ins. Co. 455 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Third Circuit's independent contractor test of Carney stating: "We therefore conclude that an independent contractor is covered under the workmen's compensation law only when a substantial part of his work time is spent in manual labor in carrying out the terms of his c
  • Prince v. BATON ROUGE GENERAL HOSP. 449 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    if a substantial part of an independent contractor's work time is spent in manual labor and the work performed by him is a part of the principal's trade, business or occupation, then the independent contractor is covered under the workers' compensation law.
  • Lewis v. Exxon Corp. 441 So. 2d 192 La. 1983
    Doss v. American Ventures, Inc., supra.
  • Rogers v. D'Aubin 434 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    had occasion to discuss an “independent contractor” as defined in the worker’s compensation law in La.R.S.
  • Benson v. Seagraves 436 So. 2d 525 La. 1983
    Lewis v. Exxon Corp., supra; (La.
  • Chargois v. Fremin 430 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    3rd Cir.1977), reversed on other grounds (La.
  • Garza v. Charles Carter & Co. 431 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Tolstonog v. Muller Restaurant Supply 430 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Marshall v. Youngblood 427 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Honeycutt v. International Paper Co. 421 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Co., supra; Caldwell v. George Sproull Co., 184 La.
  • Hight Enterprises, Inc. v. SMITH AND JOHNSON (SHIPPING) INC. 421 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    12:93(B); modified on other grounds Kingsman Enterprises, Inc. v. Bakerfield Electric Co., Inc.
  • Andersen v. Lummus Construction Co. 411 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • James v. Ace Freight Line, Inc. 411 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    the court also stated that an independent contractor is covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Law only when a substantial part of his work time is spent in manual labor in carrying out the terms of his contract with the principal and the work performed by him is part of the principal’s trade, occupation
  • Smith v. Louisiana Paving Co. 411 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Thompson v. South Central Bell Tel.
  • Brown v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 407 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    The principal issues involved in this appeal are whether Brown's services to attorney Covington in repairing the roof to the latter's office building was a part of Covington's trade, business, or occupation