Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Robinson v. F. STRAUSS & SONS, INC., 481 So. 2d 592.

16 citing documents.

Barbara Carradine v. Regis Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
“[A]n employee is protected during work hours, despite minor deviations from instructions or place of work, if what he does could reasonably be contemplated as humanly incidental to his service as an employee and does not unreasonably increase the risk of injury.” Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc.
Carradine v. Regis Corp. 52 So. 3d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
“[A]n employee is protected during work hours, despite minor deviations from instructions or place of work, if what he does could reasonably be contemplated as humanly incidental to his service as an employee and does not unreasonably increase the risk of injury.” Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc.
Arabie Bros. Trucking Co. v. Gautreaux 880 So. 2d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Hoy , 98-1565 at 3, 754 So.2d at 209 ; Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc.
Young v. Mooney 815 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
A minor deviation from the mission will not remove the employee from the mission if it is ‘humanly incidental to his service as an employee Land [if it] does not unreasonably increase the risk of injury.’ ” Hughes, 552 So.2d at 719 (citing Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc. ).
Sallean v. Jefferson Parish Medical Society 788 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
See Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc., (denial of compensation affirmed when “course of employment” showing was weak because employee had deviated from employment task to attempt reconciliation with a neighbor who was jealous over the employee’s attention to the neighbor’s girlfriend, and the neighbor’s shooting of the employee provided a weak “a
Timmons v. Silman 761 So. 2d 507 La. 2000
Curtis Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc.
Searcy v. Shoney's Restaurant 750 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc., citing Kern, supra.
Hoy v. Gilbert 754 So. 2d 207 La. 1999
Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc.
Timmons v. Silman 675 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
See Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc., and authorities cited therein at p. 593.
Pappas v. Marine Spill Response Corp. 650 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
See Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc., (denial of compensation affirmed when ‘course of employment’ showing was weak because employee had deviated from employment task to attempt reconciliation with a neighbor who was jealous over the employee’s |5attention to the neighbor’s girlfriend, and the neighbor’s shooting of the employee provided a weak
Margin v. Barthelemy 638 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Defendants correctly note that "course" has been defined as during the time of employment and at a place contemplated by the employment citing Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc.
Colletti v. Port Noma, Ltd. 625 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc.
Sims v. Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. 613 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
employment regardless of the nature of difficulty that prompted the attack or the identity of his assailant.” Furthermore, our Courts “have repeatedly awarded compensation for injuries sustained by employees while away from the place of employment attending to personal needs which are incidental to the employment or which enable the employee to work better.” Robinson v. F. Strauss and Son, Inc.
Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources 593 So. 2d 346 La. 1992
See Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc., (denial of compensation affirmed when "course of employment" showing was weak because employee had deviated from employment task to attempt reconciliation with a neighbor who was jealous over the employee's attention to the neighbor's girlfriend, and the neighbor's shooting of the employee provided a weak "a
Hughes v. Gearhart Industries, Inc. 552 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
*720 Robinson v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc.
Davis v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 552 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989