Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Thompson v. South Central Bell Tel. Co., 411 So. 2d 26.

102 citing documents.

Batiste v. Bevan 634 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Guedry v. Fromenthal 633 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
art. 966; Thompson v. South Central Bell Telephone *289 Company, Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc., (La.App.
Billiot v. Lovell 633 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
art. 966; Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc., (La.App.
Smith v. Exxon Chemical Americas 619 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
art. 966; Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc., (La.App.
Cantrelle v. State Farm General Insurance Co. 618 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
art 966; Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc., *1000 (La.App.
Duncan v. Balcor Property Management, Inc. 615 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
art. 966; Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc., (La.App.
Duncan v. Balcor Property Management, Inc. 615 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
art. 966; Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc., (La.
Crocker v. Levy 615 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Berry v. Brown & Root, Inc. 595 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc. 583 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Urbeso v. Bryan 583 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Urbeso v. Bryan 583 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc. 583 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
O'ROURKE v. Hilton Hotels Corp. 560 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
General Electric Credit Corp. v. World Car Center, Inc., (La.App.
Waldrop v. Heritage Rest Home of Houma, Inc. 558 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Sizeler Property Investors, Inc. v. Gordon Jewelry Corp. 550 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Wilson v. Stone Container Corp. 548 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Micelotti v. Karno 542 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Kupperman & Co. v. Buffalo Insurance Co. 535 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Daret v. Halmar Construction Co. 505 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Strahan v. LANDIS CONST. CO., INC. 499 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Ferguson v. Lambert 501 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Central Bell Telephone Co.
McGee v. State 502 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Seamster v. Kerr-McGee Refinery Corp. 488 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Honeycutt v. International Paper Company, supra.
Ryder ex rel. Cupp v. Federated Rural Electric Insurance Co. 495 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Rosenberg v. Fontainbleau Hotel Corp. 480 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Ermert v. Hartford Ins. Co. 480 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Bourgeois v. Fairground Corp. 480 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Laugharn v. Savoie 480 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Duvalle v. Lake Kenilworth, Inc.
Rachal v. AUDUBON PARK COM'N 467 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
The affidavit contains conclusory facts ( but specifies that maintenance and trash collection are "integrally a part of the operation and care of Audubon Park" and "Park employees also regularly and customarily perform the same work" as that performed by Handiman.
Ricker v. Wieleman 464 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
DECATUR-ST. LOUIS COMBINED EQUITY PROPERTIES, INC. v. Abercrombie 463 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Rowe v. Northwestern National Insurance Co. 461 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Gatlin v. Coca-Cola Co. 461 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Boudreaux v. Exxon Co., USA 451 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that another important factor in determining whether the principal is the statutory employer is whether the principal itself has ever performed the work for which it engaged the contractor.
Kinney v. Hutchinson 449 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Laque v. St. Charles Parish 444 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
stated: "Summary judgment under La.C.C.P.
Lewis v. Exxon Corp. 441 So. 2d 192 La. 1983
Co., Quinn v. Progress Drilling, Inc.
Boudreaux v. Exxon Co., USA 441 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that another factor that is important in determining whether the principal is the statutory employer is whether or not the principal itself has ever performed the work for which it engaged the contractor.
Garza v. Charles Carter & Co. 431 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Co., the Supreme Court held conclusory statements of ultimate fact or law, i.e., that work performed by the plaintiff was part of defendant’s trade, business, or occupation, cannot be utilized on a motion for summary judgment.
City of Covington v. Heard 428 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Boudreaux v. Pipe Line Technologists, Inc. 426 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
states: Summary judgment under La.C.C.P.
Henderson v. Administrators of Tulane Univ. 426 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
In its latest pronouncement on summary judgment, the Supreme Court, stated: "Summary judgment under La.C.C.P.
Bacon v. Diamond Motors, Inc. 424 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Duc Minh Nguyen v. Thomas 424 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Lindsay v. Opt, Inc. 423 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Honeycutt v. International Paper Co. 421 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Suhor v. Medina 421 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Harris 417 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Finally, the Supreme Court found that even though South Central Bell was the only party to file affidavits, it was not entitled to summary judgment because there were contradictions on factual issues created by the depositions and the affidavits stated conclusions of law rather than evidentiary facts.
Adams v. Times-Picayune Pub. Corp. 418 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982