DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., 434 So. 2d 65.

59 citing documents.

  • Bradley Day & Tracey Day v. Elvis Dean Thompson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    Orgeron v. Tri–State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Jeanne Terrebonne v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
    Orgeron v. Tri- State Road Boring, Inc., ( La.
  • Polkey v. LANDWORKS, INC. 68 So. 3d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Orgeron v. Tri State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Franklin v. HealthSouth 940 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Howard v. Holyfield Const. Inc., 36,734 (La.App.
  • Howard v. Holyfield Const., Inc. 839 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Orgeron v. Tri State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Goodman v. Manno Electric, Inc. 835 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Orgeron v. Tri State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Harris v. National Gypsum Co. 829 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Balthazar v. Guillory Racing Farms 802 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Nelson, ; Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., Cochennic, .
  • Short v. Plantation Management Corp. 781 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., A trial judge is allowed to call upon his own experience and expertise in determining how much time and effort a lawyer has put into the preparation of the case.
  • Quinn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 774 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Insurance Co. of North America v. Labit 772 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    5 Cir.1985), writ denied, citing Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., (La.
  • Moses v. Grambling State University 762 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Orgeron v. Tri State Road Boring, Inc., McCartney v. Orleans Parish School Board, 99-0515 (La.App.
  • Haws v. Professional Sewer Rehabilitation, Inc. 763 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Precht v. Case Corp. 756 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    This issue was considered in Olivier v. LeJeune, 95-53, p. 8 (La.2/28/96); , and Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., (La.
  • Kelly v. Riles 751 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    *311 Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • McCartney v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 743 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    5 Cir.1985), writ denied, citing Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Dufrene v. Torch, Inc. 720 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    eme Court previously noted, in the context of a worker’s compensation case, that “evidence in the form of moving pictures or videotapes must be approached with great caution because they show only intervals of the activities of the subject, they do not show rest periods, and do not reflect whether the subject is suffering pain during or after the activity.” Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Burlin v. C.D. Montz & Co. 708 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    The Supreme Court in Orgeron v. Tri State Road Boring, Inc., held: evidence in the form of moving pictures or videotapes must be approached with great caution because they show only intervals of the activities of the subject, they do not show rest periods, and do not reflect whether the subject is suffering pain during or after the activity.
  • Robinson v. Integrated Tank Services, Inc. 695 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Nelson, supra; Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Gordon v. Sandersons Farms 693 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    [19] Salvador, 415 So.2d at 515 .
  • Bolden v. Jeffrey's Steel Co., Inc. 684 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Vallelungo v. City of New Orleans 673 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Olivier v. LeJeune 668 So. 2d 347 La. 1996
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Cochennic v. Dillard's Dept. Store Warehouse 668 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Nelson, supra ; Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Sinegal v. Able Glass Co., Inc. 663 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., (La.
  • Olivier v. LeJeune 649 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., (citations omitted).
  • Layssard v. City of Alexandria 643 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Perot v. Natchitoches Parish Hospital 643 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Penn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 638 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., Bailey v. Smelser Oil & Gas, Inc.
  • Handy v. Richard's Cajun Country Food 640 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., Despain v. Guichard Drilling Company, et al., 93-933, (La.App.
  • Menard v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 640 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., Bailey v. Smelser Oil & Gas, Inc., (La.
  • Autin v. Hessmer Nursing Home 638 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Livings v. Langston Companies 628 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Hopes v. Domtar Industries 627 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    1st Cir.), writ denied, citing Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., Condall v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., (La.App.
  • Bates v. City of Crowley 613 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    As noted by our Supreme Court in Orgeron v Tri-State *1112 Road Boring, Inc., this form of evidence must be approached very cautiously because it shows only intervals of the subject's activities, it does not show rest periods, and it does not reflect whether the subject is suffering pain during or after the activity.
  • Anthony v. Georgia Pacific Corp. 589 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    1st Cir.), writ denied, citing Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., (La.
  • Manson v. City of Shreveport 577 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Plaintiff notes that evidence in the form of videotapes must be approached with caution because they show only intervals of the activities of the subjects, they do not show rest periods and do not reflect whether the subject is suffering pain during or after the activity, citing Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., (La.
  • Arriaga v. Reliance Ins. Co. of Illinois 564 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    As noted by our Supreme Court in Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., this form of evidence must be approached very cautiously because it shows only intervals of the subject's activities, it does not show rest periods, and it does not reflect whether the subject is suffering pain during or after the activity.
  • Watson v. Amite Mill. Co., Inc. 560 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    In Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., the Supreme Court, in holding a defendant liable for penalties and attorney's fees because it had terminated benefits based solely on a surveillance video tape of the plaintiff allegedly performing physical labor, stated: "In this case, USF & G had no reasonable basis for terminating benefits.
  • Guidry v. BOH BROS. CONST. CO., INC. 545 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., (La.
  • Holiday v. Borden Chemical 524 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., citing Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Culotta v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea 524 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Levitz, supra; Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Alfred v. City of Eunice 503 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Oregeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., [ ] supra.
  • Peters v. Livingston Wood Products, Inc. 486 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Barry v. Western Elec. Co., Inc. 485 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    See Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., and Martin v. H.B.
  • Scott v. Terrebonne Lumber Co. 479 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Smith v. Ranger Insurance Co. 476 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Levitz Furniture Corp. v. Horne 477 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Williams v. Western Preferred Cas. Ins. Co. 465 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc.
  • Dumas v. Jetson 462 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Cf. Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc., Leenerts Farms, (La.