Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So. 2d 475.

411 citing documents.

Haley v. Calcasieu Parish School Bd. 753 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Blevins v. Time Saver Stores, Inc. 746 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the term "intentional act" found in La.
Calvin v. Treasure Chest Casino 747 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
It noted that the jurisprudence has uniformly held that an “intentional act” is the same as an “intentional tort,”
Guillory v. Olin Corp. 745 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Abney v. Exxon Corp. 755 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
and a long list of subsequent cases, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that it and the appellate courts have narrowly construed the intentional act exception according to the legislative intent.
Walls v. American Optical Corp. 740 So. 2d 1262 La. 1999
[2] we discussed the change in the law in great detail.
Lawrence v. Security Professionals 743 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems 731 So. 2d 208 La. 1999
In determining the meaning of the phrase "intentional act," as follows: After considering broader penalties that would have provided double benefits for *211 an employer's violation of a safety rule, failure to provide a safety device required by law, or gross negligence on the part of a supervisory employee, which caused injury, death or disease, Official Journ
Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Serv., Inc. 730 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State ex rel. Stewart v. Stewart 723 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Faul v. Trahan 718 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Wingfield v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 716 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Gauthier v. O’Brien, overruled by Cavalier v. Cain’s Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95)
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems 716 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
La. Seafood Management Council v. La. Wildlife and Fisheries Com'n 715 So. 2d 387 La. 1998
Guarino v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical 712 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Traweek v. LaBorde 713 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Snow v. Lenox International, 27,533 (La.App.2d Cir. 11/01/95), .
Progressive SEC. Ins. Co. v. Foster 711 So. 2d 675 La. 1998
See also Hoffman v. United States, 767 F.2d 1431 (9th Cir. 1985); (La.App.
Allen v. Payne & Keller Co., Inc. 710 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Callaway v. Anco Insulation, Inc. 714 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Micele v. CPC of Louisiana, Inc. 709 So. 2d 1065 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Gauthe v. ASBESTOS CORP. LTD. 708 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Reeder v. North 701 So. 2d 1291 La. 1997
Bazley v. Tortorich, *1297
Backest v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation 702 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Safety Net for Abused Persons v. Segura 692 So. 2d 1038 La. 1997
Gaspard v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 688 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Jackson v. Frisard 685 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
the supreme court held that compensation shall be an employee's exclusive remedy against his employer for an unintentional injury covered by the act, but that nothing shall prevent an employee from recovering from his employer under general tort law for an intentional tort.
Whitnell v. Silverman 686 So. 2d 23 La. 1996
Cardwell v. New Orleans Public Service Inc. 683 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Schulker v. Roberson 676 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Schulker v. Roberson 676 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Miller v. Couvillion 676 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
482 (La.1981), in which the supreme court interpreted the intentional tort exception of La.R.S.
Ponthier v. Brown's Mfg., Inc. 671 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Matter of Rubicon, Inc. 670 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Lawson v. Straus 673 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Anne Lind & Assoc. v. ORLEANS PRIVATE IND. COUNCIL 673 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
our Supreme Court stated: The state constitutional guarantee of access to courts is Article I Section 22 of the Louisiana Constitution, which reads: "All courts shall be open, and every person shall have an adequate remedy by due process of law and justice, administered without denial, partiality, or un
Moore v. RLCC Technologies, Inc. 668 So. 2d 1135 La. 1996
this court noted the Legislature's primary purpose in amending Section 1032 was "to broaden the class of defendants to be granted immunity from suits by injured employees in tort or delict."
State v. Clark 670 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Bailey v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. 665 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
stated: Intent is not, however, limited to consequences which are desired.
Snow v. Lenox Intern. 662 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Bridges v. Carl E. Woodward, Inc. 663 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Jurisprudence interpreting "intentional act" the Supreme Court held that the words "intentional act" mean the same as "intentional tort" in reference to civil liability.
Hattori v. Peairs 662 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
In support of this assignment, for the proposition that an act is intentional "only where the actor entertained a desire to bring about the consequences that followed or where the actor believed that the result was substantially certain to follow."
Bradley v. Morton Thiokol, Inc. 661 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Ballex v. Naccari 663 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Landry v. Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 653 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Peterson v. BE & K INC. OF ALABAMA 652 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Price v. Circle K 649 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
|2 the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that the words “intentional act” found in La.
Quick v. Myers Welding & Fabricating 649 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Wright v. Otis Engineering Corp. 643 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
announced the rule that intent, under La.R.S.
Jasmin v. HNV Cent. Riverfront Corp. 642 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Walker v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 640 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
[sic] The word `intent' for the purposes of tort law and exclusionary clauses in insurance policies connotes that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act or believes that the consequences of his act are substantially certain to result.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by