DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., 488 So. 2d 934.

129 citing documents.

  • Louque v. Scott Equipment Co. 212 So. 3d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    9 /08/99, ; Berry v. Halston Well Serv., Inc., (La.
  • Louque v. Scott Equipment Co. 170 So. 3d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Optical Corp., 98-0455 (La.9/08/99), ; Berry v. Holston Well Serv., Inc.
  • Eva L. Bankston v. Lsu Health Sciences Center, Etc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    23:1031 and 23:1061, which overruled the statutory employer tests as stated in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and Kirkland v. Riverwood International USA, Inc., 95-1830 (La.9/13/96)
  • Bankston v. LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER 7 So. 3d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    23:1031 and 23:1061, which overruled the statutory employer tests as stated in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and Kirkland v. Riverwood International USA, Inc., 95-1830 (La.9/13/96), .
  • Everett v. Rubicon, Inc. 938 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Berry v. Holston Well Serv., Inc.
  • Jackson v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 897 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Arabie Bros. Trucking Co. v. Gautreaux 880 So. 2d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    23:1031 and 23:1061, which overruled the statutory employer tests as stated in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and Kirkland v. Riverwood International USA, Inc., 95-1830 (La.9/13/96), .
  • Allen v. EXHIBITION HALL AUTHORITY 842 So. 2d 373 La. 2003
    8/28/96) , , writ denied, 96-2387 (La.12/6/96), , which ruled that the temporal requirement was *377 not a necessary prerequisite for invoking the "two contract" theory of defense, but was instead a (La.
  • Griffin v. Wickes Lumber Co. 840 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Griffin argues that the 1997 amendments to these provisions, overruling the statutory employer tests as stated in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and Kirkland v. Riverwood International USA, Inc., 95-1830 (La.9/13/96), , were intended to eliminate application of all extensive subjective tests to determine employment status and are not limited to the determination of statutory employers under La.
  • Anthony Crane Rental, LP v. Fruge 833 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    3 Cir. 12/20/00) , writ denied, 01-880 (La.5/25/01), , we said: Although we agree with the trial court that the legislature's intent in 1989 was to overrule Berry [v. Holston Well Service, Inc., (1986) ] and revert back to the integral relation test as propounded by Thibodaux [v. Sun Oil Co.], 218 La.
  • Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc. 824 So. 2d 1137 La. 2002
    art. 1005; Berry v. Holston Well Serv., Inc.
  • Young v. City of Plaquemine 818 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    The later situation is commonly referred to as the two contract statutory employment defense and was described by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., , 936 n. 3 (La.
  • Merrick v. Bredero Price Co. 798 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    At the time of Merrick’s injury, the determination of statutory employment status was made pursuant to a three-step analysis set forth in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., as limited by the 1989 amendment to the statute and explained in Kirkland v. Riverwood International USA Inc., 681 So.2d at 336-337 , as follows: We therefore hold that the appropriate standard under the amended Section 1061 for determining whether the contract work is part of the alleged principal’s trade
  • Lemaire v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. 793 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In brief, CIBA-GEIGY asserts that in concluding CIBA-GEIGY was not Lemaire's statutory employer, the trial court erroneously applied the three-tiered analysis set forth in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., rather than the integral relation test articulated in *344 Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La.
  • Applegarth v. Transamerican Refining Corp. 781 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    {Emphasis added} Section 2 of Acts 1997, No. 315, § 1, as amended, provides that, " and Kirkland v. Riverwood Intern.
  • Clavier v. Lay Down Service, Inc. 776 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., the court discarded that test in favor of a "test ...
  • Joseph v. Parish of St. John the Baptist 772 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    On appeal, Plaintiff asserts that the trial judge erred in failing to apply the statuto *738 and by applying the 1997 amendments to R.S.
  • Insurance Company of North America v. Gaylord Container Corp. 764 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Prior to the statute's amendment in 1989, in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court abandoned the previously accepted "integral relation" test between the contractor's work and the principal's trade, business or occupation to determine a statutory employment relationship.
  • Miller v. Higginbottom 768 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    23:1061 and Kirkland v. Riverwood International USA, Inc., 95-1830 (La.9/13/96), .- The effective date of the amendment is June 17, 1997, and the amendment is intended to have prospec-live application only.
  • Ring v. Decor Gravure Corp. 768 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    The supreme court described the two-contract situation in a footnote in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Boyd v. South Central Bell Telephone Co. 750 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    The controlling case law under that pre-1997 and Kirkland v. Riverwood Intern.
  • Jordan v. Central Management Co. 745 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    This statute was amended by Acts 1997, No. 315, § 1, effective June 17, 1997, according to § 2 of that Act, to legislatively overrule the statutory employer tests as set forth in the Louisiana Supreme Court's decisions in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and Kirkland v. Riverwood International USA, Inc., 95-1830 (La.9/13/96); .
  • Walls v. American Optical Corp. 740 So. 2d 1262 La. 1999
    P. art. 1005; Berry v. Holston Well Serv., Inc.
  • Watkins v. International Service Systems 741 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    23:1061 and Kirkland, infra .
  • Dixon v. Evans Cooperage, Inc. 697 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    At the time of plaintiff’s injury, determination of statutory employment status was made pursuant to a three-step analysis set forth in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., 488 * which has been summarized as follows: In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., we set forth a three tier analysis to determine the existence of a statutory employment relationship.
  • Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Yeargin, Inc. 690 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    He stated that, in consideration of the factors of Berry v. Holston Well Serv., Inc., [1] , he felt that Citgo would qualify as the statutory employer of the claimants injured in the accident.
  • Black v. McDermott Intern. Inc. 692 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., , 936 n. 3, (La.1986) the Supreme Court described the two-contract theory as follows: The discussion throughout the remainder of this opinion does not deal with what may be called the "two-contract" statutory employer defense.
  • Kerner v. Maurice Guillot Realty, Inc. 692 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    23:1061 is unconstitutional, and therefore the test espoused in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., (La.
  • Moore v. Safeway, Inc. 700 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    The Kirkland court noted the restrictive construction that the statutory employment relationship had been given historically, [10] which culminated in the landmark decision of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Kirkland v. Riverwood International USA, Inc. 694 So. 2d 890 La. 1996
    Relator simply reiterates its dual contentions that: (1) the plain language of the amended statute compels a result contrary to that reached by the majority and (2) whatever the deficiencies in the foregoing argument, the legislative intent in passing the amendment to LSA-RS 23:1061 was to abolish Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and its factors and reinstate the “integral relation” test of Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La.
  • Byrom v. City of Lafayette 682 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    3 Cir. 10/4/95) ; -46 , this court ^observed the following: *1024 The Louisiana Supreme Court has yet to interpret the meaning of the statute as amended as to whether the amendment is retroactive or whether the amendment broadened the definition of statutory employers and overruled the three-tier analysis of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Criticized Kirkland v. Riverwood Intern. USA, Inc. 681 So. 2d 329 La. 1996
    The Berry Decision The restrictive construction of the statutory employment relationship, when used as a defense, culminated in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Louviere v. Woodson Construction Co. 679 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    The court in Davis determined that the contracts at the center of that dispute did not fit into the two-contract scenario as described in footnote three of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., which reads: The discussion throughout the remainder of this opinion does not deal with what may be called the “two-contract” statutory employer defense.
  • Griffin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 662 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Apparently unhappy with the Rresults yielded by the integral relation test, the Supreme Court in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., reformulated and restricted the test for determining statutory employment.
  • Thomas v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVELOPMENT 662 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    23:1032 and 1061, which abolished the rigid, three-tiered test announced in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and the absence of a clear test for identifying a statutory employment relationship when assessing a party's trade, business or occupation.
  • Trahan v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS 663 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has yet to interpret the meaning of the statute as amended as to whether the amendment is retroactive or whether the amendment broadened the definition of statutory employers and overruled the three-tier analysis of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Rodgers v. James River II, Inc. 661 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    He contends that the factors set forth in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., to determine the status of a statutory employee are still in effect and that the 1989 amendment must be narrowly construed in order to leave the Berry criteria in place.
  • Kirkland v. Riverwood Intern. USA, Inc. 658 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    In response to a perceived restriction on this defense pronounced in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., the legislature amended LSA-R.S.
  • Blouin v. Shell Oil Co. 656 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth several factors to be considered in determining the statutory employer question.
  • Moffett v. Buck Kreihs Co. 654 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Peterson v. BE & K INC. OF ALABAMA 652 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    The Trial Court erred in its finding that the defendant was plaintiff's statutory employer under the analysis of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Riles v. Truitt Jones Const. 648 So. 2d 1296 La. 1995
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., -938 (La.1986).
  • Prevost v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 648 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    We first look for the answer in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Vickers v. Cajun Concrete Services, Inc. 634 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    which attempted to narrow the statutory employer doctrine.
  • Richard v. Teague 636 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    When this accident occurred in 1987, the question of statutory employment was resolved according to the Louisiana Supreme Court's analysis in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Harrison v. Redd 635 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Picard v. Zeit Exploration Co., Inc. 636 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    23:1061, applicable at the time of plaintiff's alleged injury, overruled Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and mandated a return to the "integral relation" test formulated in Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La.
  • Carnes v. Frank's Petroleum, Inc. 633 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    On January 17, 1991, the trial court issued written reasons for judgment, stating that Frank’s Petroleum had failed to address whether the contract work was specialized or non-specialized, which is the first prong of the statutory employer three-pronged test set forth in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Deal v. International Paper Co. 632 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    2d Cir.1993), wherein we concluded that Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and the factors enunciated therein are no longer the appropriate test for determining whether a statutory employment relationship exists.
  • Hanks v. Shell Oil Co. 631 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    23:1061 as defined by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.