DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 444 So. 2d 618.

126 citing documents.

  • Hillery v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 503 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    In Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., the Supreme Court held that in order for an employee to establish a cause of action against his employer or fellow employees in intentional tort, the “intent” element of the act in question may be pled generally.
  • Williams v. Charity Hosp. of Louisiana 499 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • Humphrey v. St. Louis 492 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    *222 Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., citations omitted.
  • Top Services, Inc. v. Poydras Properties 487 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • Guzzetta v. Texas Pipe Line Co. 485 So. 2d 508 La. 1986
    1984); Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • Mitchell v. Crane 485 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    927; Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., (La.
  • Simoneaux v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co., Inc. 483 So. 2d 908 La. 1986
    Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • Bourgeois v. Medical Center of East New Orleans 482 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    art. 927; Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • Succession of Montegut 480 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    See also Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • McDonald v. Gonzales 479 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • Kizer v. Lilly 471 So. 2d 716 La. 1985
    [14] See Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • Gallant v. Transcontinental Drilling Co. 471 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., (La.
  • Hamm v. Precision Rebuilders, Inc. 470 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    A preliminary pitfall for plaintiffs seeking to recover from their employers in tort under the exclusion has been inadequate pleadings of an “intentional act.” In the recent case of Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., plaintiff stated a cause of action for an intentional act when his petition alleged officers of the employers knew to a substantial certainty their acts in violation of safety regulations would cause the explosion which injured plaintiff.
  • Williams v. Ingredient Technology Corp. 470 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • Yousufali v. Southland Corp. 467 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • Ewert v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. 468 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    In Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., the Supreme Court held that it was permissable for the employee to plead the intent element of his intentional tort cause of action generally and without particularity.
  • Goodman v. Dixie MacH. Welding and Metal Works, Inc. 467 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • O'Neill v. Johns-Manville Corp. 463 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    which states: “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 has an act been characterized as intentional.” However, in the case of Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the intent element of an employee’s intentional tort cause of action may be pleaded generally and without particularity.
  • Leger v. Delahoussaye 464 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    In Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated clearly: "...
  • Brown v. Ebasco Services, Inc. 461 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    Plaintiff cites Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., in which the Supreme Court found that an allegation by the plaintiff that the employer's officers knew to a substantial certainty that their acts in violation of safety regulations would cause an explosion which injured the plaintiff, was sufficient to defeat an exception of no cause of action.
  • Cupp v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Co. 459 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    However, in Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., et al., the Louisiana Supreme Court relaxed the requirements for pleading intent in a cause of action.
  • Poston v. Davis 451 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    (p 481) A recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision, Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., is determinative of this case.
  • Van Alton v. FISK ELEC., INC. 451 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Finally, in Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., the Supreme Court resolved the conflict among these cases and put the problem to rest.
  • Bradshaw v. Anco Insulation, Inc. 450 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    23:1032; Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
  • Darville v. Texaco, Inc. 447 So. 2d 473 La. 1984
    art. 927; Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., (La.
  • Fabre v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. 446 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    In the case of Mayer v. Valentine Sugar, Inc., et al., the court stated: The trial court sustained the employer's exception of no cause of action because of the conclusory manner in which he alleged the element of intent: the employee merely alleged that the employer's officers knew to a substantial certainty that their acts in violation of safety regulations