DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

411 citing documents.

  • Mathew v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. 578 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    the Supreme Court defined "intentional act" as used in La.R.S.
  • Wallace v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 578 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    set forth a two step analysis to determine the meaning of intent in this context: "...
  • Hudson v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., Inc. 573 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Williams v. Gervais F. Favrot Co., Inc. 573 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    the Supreme Court discussed the legislative policy behind the exception: After considering broader penalties that would have provided double benefits for 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 employ
  • Doe v. Smith 573 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    the Louisiana Supreme Court succinctly set forth the distinction between "act" and "intent" as follows: Although the theorists have not always agreed, the words "act" and "intent" now have generally accepted meanings in the fields of tort and criminal law.
  • Fricke v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 571 So. 2d 130 La. 1990
  • Hurst v. Massey 570 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Tenneco and the three Refinery Managers filed exceptions asserting that plaintiffs had failed to state a
  • Mahfouz v. JACE Oilfield Sales and Service, Inc. 569 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • Gray v. McInnis Bros. Const., Inc. 569 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • Cazenave v. Pierce 568 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • Bonin v. Bon Electrical Contractors, Inc. 567 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    ...” Louisiana courts have defined intentional act for purposes of the exception to the exclusivity of the Louisiana worker’s compensation statute as an act whereby the defendant either consciously desired the physical result that followed or believed that the result was substantially certain to follow from
  • Dycus v. Martin Marietta Corp. 568 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Under the exception to the exclusivity of the worker's compensation law, there must be an intentional tort in order that the employer be exposed to a tort action by the employee.
  • Holliday v. BE & K. CONST. CO. 563 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • Benjamin v. First Horizon Ins. Co. 563 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Under the strict interpretation of the term `intentional act' in Bazley [ v. Tortorich, ], this court *1341 knows of no successful case reported by an appellate court (nor has counsel cited any) where an intentional tort has been found in a case of this nature.
  • Cooper v. Olinde 565 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    The basic difference between an intentional tort and a
  • Delone v. Odom 561 So. 2d 1015 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    The Supreme Court has defined an intentional act as one in which the actor “either consciously desired the physical result of his act or knew that that result was substantially certain to follow from his conduct.”
  • Schouest v. Stipelcovich 560 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Robertson v. LaPlace Concrete, Inc. 560 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Moore v. Roemer 560 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Because a worker's compensation claim does not involve fundamental rights, (La.
  • Menard v. Zeno 558 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 8 (4th ed. 1971); Restatement (Second) of Torts, American Law Institute § 8A (1965).
  • Lyons v. Airdyne Lafayette, Inc. 558 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Fricke v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas 559 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    the Louisiana Supreme Court defined an intentional tort as follows: *26 “The meaning of ‘intent is that the person who acts either (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or (2) knows that that result is substantially certain
  • Holmes v. Pottharst 557 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    the Supreme Court clearly set forth the standard for proving that an employer has acted intentionally in injuring an employee so as to overcome the exclusivity provision of the worker's compensation statute.
  • Kennedy v. Parrino 555 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Reeder v. Laks Corp. 555 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Penalber v. Blount 550 So. 2d 577 La. 1989
    The basic difference between an intentional tort and a
  • Breland v. Schilling 550 So. 2d 609 La. 1989
    -81 (La.1981), this Court addressed the meaning of this statute's "intentional act" language, opining that the statute's "intentional act" exception mirrored the traditional distinction between intentional torts and negligence in common law.
  • Burt v. Dunham-Price Inc. 549 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    the Supreme Court explained an intentional tortious act as follows: “The meaning of ‘intent’ is that the person who acts either (1) consciously desl-eres the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or (2) knows that that result is substantially certain
  • Williams v. Kushner 549 So. 2d 294 La. 1989
    381 (1919), (on original hearing)
  • Ewert v. Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. 548 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • Burns v. Kenworth Motor Truck Co. 548 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    defined an intentional act as follows: “The word act is used to denote an external manifestation of the actor’s will which produces consequences....
  • Banes v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 544 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    interpreted intentional acts to be the equivalent of intentional torts.
  • Anderson v. St. Bernard Parish 543 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    23:1032; Hamm v. Precision Rebuilders, Inc., (La.App.
  • Kersh v. Heffner 542 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    is quoted in both types of decisions, although Bazley is an employee versus employer suit.
  • Kent v. Jomac Products, Inc. 542 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Davis v. Southern Louisiana Insulations 539 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the words "intentional act" used in LSA-R.S.
  • Hare v. Ganaway Construction Co. 536 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    It said: “In order to succeed, [the plaintiff] must still prove that the person who acted either (1) consciously desired the physical results of his act or (2) knew that that result was substantially certain to follow from his conduct.” As authority
  • Favorite v. Alton Ochsner Med. Found. 537 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    23:1032 has the same meaning as does an intentional tort, that the actor either 1) consciously desired the physical result of his act, or 2) knew that the result was substantially certain to follow his conduct.
  • Hazelton v. Soileau 532 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    In Bazley [v. Tortorich, ] and subsequent cases, we have observed that the legislature’s decisions on economic and social welfare and the preservation of the state’s fiscal resources, are decisions within the discretion of the legislative branch.
  • Hurst v. Massey 533 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    which states that: “[T]he meaning of ‘intent’ is that the person who acts either (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result *37 happening from his conduct; or (2) knows that that result is substantially certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desi
  • Bourgeois v. Jordan 527 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Stafford v. National Maintenance Corp. 527 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    the court held that to meet the requirements of an intentional act, the defendant must have “desired the consequences of his acts or omissions or ...
  • Chaisson v. Henning 525 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    defined an intentional act as follows: *555 “The word act is used to denote an external manifestation of the actor’s will which produces consequences....
  • Knox v. Pelias 522 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    In discussing intent in such cases, we stated: so frequently cited, is that intent under R.S.
  • Brock v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets 520 So. 2d 711 La. 1988
    Sibley v. Board of Supervisors of L.S.U., *715 , aff'd in part, rev'd in part and remanded on rehearing
  • Galvin v. P.E. Barnes & Sons, Ltd. 521 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    An intentional act is one in which the defendant “either desired to bring about the physical results of his act or believed they were substantially certain to follow from what he did.”
  • Johnson v. Hitchens 518 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Hood v. South Louisiana Medical Center 517 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, gave definition to the term "intentional act" in the context of the above mentioned statute: The meaning of `intent' is that the person who acts either (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or (2) knows that that result is
  • Posseno v. Security Insurance Group 517 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Cudges v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital 514 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Therefore, defendant’s negligence and intentional act have caused complainant great pain ...” involved a definition of “intentional tort” in a worker’s compensation case, it would seem to us that Bazley is equally applicable to the issue of determining whether an act or omission is an intentional, or unintentional tort, as mentioned in LSA-R.S.