DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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.

  • Gobert v. McDermott, Inc. 634 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    The latter 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.1986), as follows: In [the two-contract] situation, an owner contracts with a general contractor to do a job.
  • Forchia v. BROWNING-FARRIS INDUSTRIES OF LOUISIANA 629 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    The statutory employee doctrine was interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Moore v. Crystal Oil Co. 626 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    However, in 1986, the Louisiana Supreme Court abandoned the "integral relation" test in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Taylor v. Broadmoor Corp. 623 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    936 n. 3 (La.1986) (dicta discussing "two-contract" statutory employer defense).
  • Audler v. BOARD OF COM'RS, PORT OF NO 617 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    That statute was amended in 1989 to confront and broaden the stricter standards for statutory employer status enunciated by our Supreme Court in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Green v. Popeye's Inc. 619 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Duncan v. Balcor Property Management, Inc. 615 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Ordinarily, the courts are required to follow the analysis set forth in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., -38 (La.1986), to determine whether a statutory employment relationship exists.
  • Duncan v. Balcor Property Management, Inc. 615 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Ordinarily, the courts are required to follow the analysis set forth in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., -38 (La.1986), to determine whether a statutory employment relationship exists.
  • Metz v. NICHOLS CONST. CORP. 615 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    23:1061, by utilizing a three-step analysis established by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Berry v. Holston *970 Well Service, Inc.
  • Frith v. American Motorists Ins. Co. 613 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    It legislatively overruled the case of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., (La.
  • St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith 609 So. 2d 809 La. 1992
    23:1061, regarding the statutory employer defense, explaining: I believe the situation is similar to the legislature's overruling of the case of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Bowens v. General Motors Corp. 608 So. 2d 999 La. 1992
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., we set forth a three tier analysis to determine the existence of a statutory employment relationship.
  • Hutchins v. Hill Petroleum Co. 609 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    [3] Prior to that amendment, the Supreme *315 Court, in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., developed a three-step test for determining whether statutory employment existed between an employee of a contractor and the principal: "(1) Is the contract work specialized?
  • Fuselier v. Amoco Production Co. 607 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., the Supreme Court set forth the test to be applied in determining whether a principal is to be considered the statutory employer of a contractor's employee.
  • Graves v. Lou Ana Foods, Inc. 604 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    LOU ANA'S STATUTORY EMPLOYER DEFENSE Lou Ana and Hartford contend that under the analysis of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., Lou Ana was Graves's statutory employer and thereby immune from tort liability.
  • Crowley v. City of Lafayette 602 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    I believe the situation is similar to the legislature's overruling of the case of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • DeWoody v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 604 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    STATUTORY EMPLOYER DEFENSE The law applicable to this issue is as stated in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Bowens v. General Motors Corp. 596 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    The hallmark case in this area is Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Young v. Lyons Petroleum, Inc. 598 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in the case of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., , at page 938 (La.1986), discussed the statutory employment doctrine as it pertains to employees who are performing a job that is part of an employer's trade, business or occupation as follows: "The central question to be answered is whether the contract work is specialized or nonspecialized.
  • Berry v. Brown & Root, Inc. 595 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    British Petroleum moved for summary judgment, claiming statutory employer status, as that doctrine was interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Carter v. Chevron Chemical Co. 593 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    23:1061, the supreme court in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., developed a three step test for determining whether statutory employment existed between an employee of a contractor and the principal: (1) Is the contract work specialized?
  • Bourgeois v. Puerto Rican Marine Management, Inc. 589 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    At the time of the accident which resulted in Bourgeois' death, determination of statutory employer status in one-contract cases was controlled by the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., (La.
  • Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc. 583 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Prior to the amendment of 23:1061(A.), Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., provided a three prong test [4] for determining when a principal could be considered the statutory employer of a contractor's employees in a one-contract situation.
  • Legros v. Norcen Exploration, Inc. 583 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Prior to the amendment of 23:1061(A.), Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., provided a three prong test 4 for determining when a principal could be considered the statutory employer of a contractor’s employees in a one-contract situation.
  • Howard v. Georgia Pacific Corp. 583 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., W. Malone and H.A.
  • Fountain v. Central Louisiana Elec. Co. 578 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., the court enunciated a three tier analysis by which the existence of a statutory employment relationship can be determined.
  • Mathew v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. 578 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    [2] The Supreme Court has illustrated the two-contract situation in a footnote in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., : [A]n owner contracts with a general contractor to do a job.
  • Croy v. BOLLINGER MACH. SHOP & SHIPYARD 578 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Generally, the courts must follow the analysis set forth in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., -38 (La.1986) to determine whether a statutory employment relationship exists.
  • Boudreaux v. Freeport Chemical Co. 576 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court set out in detail the analysis used to determine whether a statutory employment relationship exists.
  • Crochet v. Westminster City Center Prop. 572 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Although the Louisiana Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on this issue, the court favorably cited decisions from all five appellate courts to this effect.
  • Dye v. Ipik Door Co., Inc. 570 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Fontana v. Hibernia Nat. Bank 568 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    A tri-level analysis for determining whether an individual is a statutory employee is set forth in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Rosier v. HA Lott, Inc. 563 So. 2d 1321 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Plaintiffs argue that the "two contract" statutory employer defense does not apply because steel erection service is specialized per se under the analysis of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., (La.
  • Manuel v. Odeco, Inc. 563 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Whenever the statutory employment defense is raised, the method of analysis to be used in resolving the difficult question is the three-level analysis provided in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • LeBlanc v. Alton Ochsner Medical Found. 563 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., compare Barnhill v. American Well Service & Salvage, (La.App.
  • Beddingfield v. Standard Const. Co. 560 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    the supreme court set out an analysis to be used when determining statutory employer status.
  • Singleton v. Marine Shale Processors, Inc. 560 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court did not err in dismissing the defendants from the suit pursuant to their statutory employer defense and the guidelines enunciated in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Tujague v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, Division of Youth Services 559 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Kennedy v. Parrino 555 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    (Compare Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., which classifies the plea that one is a statutory employer as an affirmative defense.)
  • Sanders v. Baton Rouge Water Works Co. 552 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Massey v. Century Ready Mix Corp. 552 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    They argue that the Louisiana Supreme Court, in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., intended to abolish the "two contract" rule, since to do otherwise would shield the general contractor from both tort liability and liability for worker's compensation, the latter being covered by the subcontractor.
  • Bradford v. Village Ins. Co. 548 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    In sustaining the motion for summary judgment, the trial judge reasoned the "two contract" statutory employer defense had not been nullified by Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Wilson v. Stone Container Corp. 548 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., the Supreme Court set forth a three-level analysis for determining the existence of a statutory employment relationship.
  • Wolf v. Louisiana State Racing Com'n 545 So. 2d 976 La. 1989
    See also Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Humphrey v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 546 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    Plaintiffs rely on Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., to argue that the Louisiana Supreme Court has articulated new guidelines to determine whether the statutory employer defense should apply.
  • Mouton v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 545 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    The trial court granted the motion and rendered judgment on October 31, 1988, on the basis of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., finding no genuine issues of material fact, and that, as a matter of law, LP & L was Mouton’s statutory employer.
  • Short v. Mobil Oil Corp. 544 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Generally, the courts must follow the analysis set forth in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., (La.
  • Rachal v. Audubon Park Commission 543 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Even assuming argendo, that the Commission does have this subsidiary relationship with the City, there still remains the question of whether that “relationship” would extend Audubon’s statutory employer status to the City, although the City obviously cannot independently meet the Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., test.
  • Explained Doiron v. Geo Drilling Fluids, Inc. 541 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    The court agreed with the discussion of the “two contract” defense, as explained in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., that the contract work of the “sub” is automatically within the “trade, business or occupation of the ‘general.’ ” Williams , citing Berry , at 936, n. 3.
  • Crater v. Mesa Offshore Co. 539 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    The Louisiana Supreme Court illustrates what the "two-contract" defense is in a footnote in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.