Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Charbonnet v. Gerace, 457 So. 2d 676.

82 citing documents.

Williams v. Eysink 163 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
New Orleans Private Patrol Service, Inc. v. Kuykendall 85 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 4/14/04), , 1239 citing
FONTENET v. Cypress Bayou Casino 964 So. 2d 1035 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
see also Banks v. Administrator of Dept. of Employment Security, State of Louisiana
Delta American Healthcare, Inc. v. Burgess 930 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Sylvia A. Picou v. Trussco, Inc.; Board of Review; La Dept of Labor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
“the ‘misconduct’ must have resulted from willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interest, from a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, or from a direct disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employees.”
Picou v. Trussco, Inc. 924 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
"the `misconduct' must have resulted from willful or wanton disregard of the employer's interest, from a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, or from a direct disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employees."
New Orleans Private Patrol Service, Inc. v. Shorts 908 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
23:1601(2)(a), connotes intentional wrongdoing and concluded that “an employee can be unsatisfactory to the employer without being guilty of disqualifying misconduct.” the Supreme Court found that the requisite “misconduct” for purposes of disqualification from unemployment compensation benefits must result from “willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interest, from a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, or from a direct disregard of standards of beha
Lockett v. Forster 879 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Simply stated, the Board of Review’s findings “are conclusive if supported by sufficient evidence, since sufficiency of the evidence is always a question of law.”
Hall v. Folger Coffee Co. 874 So. 2d 90 La. 2004
("[S]ufficiency of the evidence is always a question of law."); Gagnard v. Allstate Ins.
Brandon v. Lockheed Martin Corp. 872 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Lafitte v. Reliant Energy Resource Corp. 859 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
St. Tammany Parish School Bd. v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 818 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Harsco Corp. v. Victoria 812 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Holmes v. Forster 781 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
for reference to the first principle.
Harville v. Conagra Poultry Co. 768 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
“the ‘misconduct’ must have resulted from willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interest, from a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, or from a direct disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employees.” Whether a policy violation warrants
Harris v. Houston 722 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Savoie v. Labove 692 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
3 Cir.1991); Taco Bell Corp. v. Perkins, 95-225 (La.App.
Victor v. Administrator, Office of Employment Security 676 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Taco Bell Corp. v. Perkins 662 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Prior to the 1990 amendment, the Louisiana Supreme Court strictly construed the definition of misconduct within R.S.
ConAgra Broiler Co. v. Gerace 657 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Gobert v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT SEC. 651 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Prior to the amendment, strictly construed the definition of misconduct within La.R.S.
Holtry v. Truly 647 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Wood v. Dept. of Employment SEC. 632 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Toney v. Francis 618 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Hardeman v. Blache 605 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Provost v. Adm. Office of Employment 602 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Landry v. Shell Oil Co. 597 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Thibeaux v. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center Inc. 591 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Banks [v. Administrator of Department of Employment Security] [ ] supra.
Operators, Inc. v. Comeaux 579 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Joseph v. Whitfield 580 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
: For a claimant to be disqualified from benefits because of “misconduct connected with his employment” under La.R.S.
Schwamb v. Administrator, Division of Employment Security Department of Labor, State 577 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
23:1601(2)(a) provides that an employee can be disqualified for benefits if discharged “for misconduct connected with [the] employment.” as that resulting “from a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules_” See also, (La.App.
Settoon v. Berg 577 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
McDonald's Sherwood Forest, Inc. v. Administrator, Department of Employment Security, (La.App.
Martin Mills, Inc. v. Leon 576 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Johnson v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. 573 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Lexing v. Francis 572 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Dunn v. Gerace, supra ; (La.App.
Coleman v. Blache 566 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Price v. Blache 560 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Bell v. Berg 559 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Cabezas v. ADM'R, DIV. OF EMP. SEC. 557 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Cabezas v. Administrator, Division of Employment Security 557 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Davis v. Henry 555 So. 2d 457 La. 1990
we were faced with the question of whether the federal government had shown that its employees, striking air traffic controllers, had engaged in willful misconduct sufficient to bar their entitlement to workers' compensation benefits.
Followed Davis v. Henry 555 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Appellees also argued that we are bound by footnote 2 in which the Louisiana Supreme Court stated “Strikes against state, parochial and municipal governments are not statutorily prohibited in Louisiana.
Sensley v. Administrator, Office of Employment Security 552 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Sensley v. ADM'R, OFFICE OF EMP. SEC. 552 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Raymond v. Office of Employment Security 551 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
for misconduct connected with his employment.” strictly construed the definition of “disqualifying misconduct” as follows: “...
Kelly v. Whitfield 546 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Lewis v. Administrator 540 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Martin Mills, Inc. v. Dept. of Employment SEC. 541 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Banks [ v. Administrator of Department of Employment Security ] [ ] supra.
Jantzen of Louisiana, Inc. v. Administrator of the Louisiana Office of Employment Security 539 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
the ‘misconduct’ must have resulted from a willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interest, from a willful violation of the employer’s rules or from a direct disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employees ...”
Brown v. Whitfield 537 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
for misconduct connected with his employment.” and stated: “For a claimant to be disqualified from benefits because of ‘misconduct connected with his employment’ under La.R.S.