DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Benson v. Seagraves, 436 So. 2d 525.

34 citing documents.

  • Everett v. Rubicon, Inc. 938 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Co., (genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether work of breaking concrete and digging underground pathway for telephone conduit was part of telephone company's trade, business, or occupation); (worker who was injured while performing electrical planning and design work in connection with a new service substation for a rural electric cooperative, was not statutory employee of cooperative since cooperative did not have employees who customarily performed such work)
  • Walls v. American Optical Corp. 740 So. 2d 1262 La. 1999
    (and cases cited therein).
  • Kirkland v. Riverwood Intern. USA, Inc. 681 So. 2d 329 La. 1996
    Co., Rowe v. Northwestern Nat'l Ins.
  • Richard v. Teague 636 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Lewis, supra; Benson [ v. Seagraves, ], supra; Barnes, [ v. Sun Oil Co., ], supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Graves v. Lou Ana Foods, Inc. 604 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Lewis, supra; Benson [ v. Seagraves, ], supra; Barnes, [ v. Sun Oil Co., ], supra; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • DeWoody v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 604 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Lewis, supra; Benson [ v. Seagraves, ], supra; Barnes [ v. Sun Oil Co., (La.
  • Bowens v. General Motors Corp. 596 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Lewis, supra ; Benson [ v. Seagraves, ], supra; Barnes, [ v. Sun Oil Co., (La.
  • Fountain v. Central Louisiana Elec. Co. 578 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    Lewis, supra ; Benson [ v. Seagraves, ], supra; Barnes, [ v. Sun Oil Co., (La.
  • Mouton v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 545 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Rowe v. Northwestern Nat’l. Ins.
  • Dobson v. New Orleans Public Service Inc. 522 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Benoit v. Grey Wolf Drilling, Inc. 520 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., (La.
  • Lewis v. Modular Quarters 508 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Co., Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., (La.App.
  • Recatto v. Bayou Steel Corp. 508 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Lewis, supra; Benson [v. Seagraves, ], supra; Barnes, supra [v. Sun Oil Co., ]; Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
  • Chauvin v. Gulf Coast Minerals, Inc. 509 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and Rowe v. Northwestern Nat.
  • Jackson v. Louisiana Power & Light 510 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Teague v. Sawyer Drilling Co. 499 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    The court reasoned that Lewis v. Exxon, supra and its predecessor, were not applicable because those cases dealt with new construction whereas Berry concerned oil and gas production.
  • Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc. 488 So. 2d 934 La. 1986
    1983) were distinguished on the ground that those cases involved "new construction" and on that factual basis were not controlling.
  • Seamster v. Kerr-McGee Refinery Corp. 488 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Lewis v. Exxon Corporation, supra
  • Teague v. Sawyer Drilling Co. 485 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Generally, in order for a work or project to be within a principal’s trade, business or occupation, it must be routine or customary, Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., -08 (La.1973), or some other type of activity which is necessary for the principal’s day-to-day operations.
  • Distinguished Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc. 479 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    We feel that Rowe is readily distinguishable from the case before us, were distinguishable.
  • Distinguished Portier v. Thrifty Way Pharmacy 476 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    In Berry, supra, we distinguished Louis v. Exxon, supra, as new construction cases.
  • Portier v. Thrifty Way Pharmacy 479 So. 2d 916 La. 1985
    Rome v. Northwestern Nat.
  • Rowe v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. 471 So. 2d 226 La. 1985
    Lewis v. Exxon Corporation, supra
  • Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc. 467 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Rachal v. AUDUBON PARK COM'N 467 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    Generally a particular activity is within the scope of the principal's trade or business if it is routine or customary, if the principal customarily performs the type of work done by the contractor and that work is an integral part of the work customarily performed by the principal, (La.App.
  • Holmes v. St. Charles General Hosp. 465 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • Brown v. Ebasco Services, Inc. 461 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    Generally, in order for a work or project to be within a principal's trade, business or occupation, it must be routine or customary, Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., -08 (La.1973), or some other type of activity which is necessary for the principal's day-to-day operations.
  • Duvalle v. Lake Kenilworth, Inc. 467 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    apparently limit the statutory "part of his trade, business or occupation" to work that is customarily performed by employees of the principal.
  • McCorkle v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 457 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Boudreaux v. Exxon Co., USA 451 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Further, that if the work involved is not customarily performed by employees of the principal, the principal is not the statutory employer of the contractor's employees.
  • Butler v. Home Ins. Co. 448 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    As the Supreme Court stated in Lewis : Generally, in order for a work or project to be within a principal's trade, business, or occupation, it must be routine or customary, or some other type of activity which is necessary for the principal's day-to-day operation.
  • Benson v. Seagraves 445 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    [2] Published as Benson v. Seagraves, Jefferson Davis Electrical Cooperative, Inc., and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 1983
  • Lewis v. Exxon Corp. 441 So. 2d 192 La. 1983
    Generally, in order for a work or project to be within a principal's trade, business or occupation, it must be routine or customary, Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., -08 (La.
  • Boudreaux v. Exxon Co., USA 441 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    [1] And even more recently