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.

  • Rogers v. Gervais Favrot Co., Inc. 537 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., , 936 n. 3 (La.1986).
  • Distinguished Cain v. Martin Marietta Corp. 537 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    The court also found Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., factually distinguishable from this case as it did not involve a “dual contract” situation.
  • Chauvin v. Jefferson Parish School Board 534 So. 2d 1359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., held: The central question to be answered is whether the contract work is specialized or non-specialized.
  • Garrene v. BASF Wyandotte Corp. 532 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    See Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Ardoin v. BASF Wyandotte Corp. 525 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    After examining the evidence in this record pursuant to the three level analysis enunciated in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., we find that the record does not clearly establish whether plaintiff is defendant’s statutory employee.
  • Grigg v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. 528 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth a three-step analysis for determining whether a statutory employment relationship exists: 1 (1) Is the contract work specialized or non-speeial-ized?
  • Hope v. State 525 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., , 936 n. 3 (La.1986); (on rehearing); Duvalle v. Lake Kenilworth, Inc., Albin v. Red Stick Construction Company, Inc., (La.App.
  • Williams v. Metal Bldg. Products Co., Inc. 522 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Following a two-day trial, the judge found that Building Products was not the statutory employer of Williams, citing Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., that Building Products was negligent in failing to provide a handrail; that this negligence was the "sole legal cause" of the accident; and that Williams was entitled to damages in the amount of $570,440.00.
  • Dobson v. New Orleans Public Service Inc. 522 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    The three level analysis provided by Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., requires that we first consider the entire scope of the work contract to determine whether the contract work is specialized or non-specialized.
  • Burleigh v. South Louisiana Contractors 525 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    On this appeal Burleigh, arguing that the motion for summary judgment was improperly granted, presents two issues: (1) has Louisiana Land proffered sufficient facts to qualify as a statutory employer under the "trade, business and occupation" test of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and (2) is a mineral lessee automatically a statutory employer under the "two-contract" test?
  • Benoit v. Grey Wolf Drilling, Inc. 520 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Hankins v. Woman's Hospital 517 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    In its reasons for judgment, the trial court based its decision on the criteria of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., to determine plaintiff's status as a statutory employee.
  • Aetna Cas. & Sur. v. Schwegmann W. Exp. 516 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., , 936 n. 3 (La.1986).
  • Demery v. Dupree 511 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    STATUTORY EMPLOYER Appelants argue that the trial court erred in finding that Paul Shaw, Inc. was the statutory employer of plaintiff under the analysis set forth in Berry v. Halston Well Service, Inc. and based on insufficient proof of the contract between Dupree and Shaw under LSA-C.C.
  • Lewis v. Modular Quarters 508 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    In the recent case of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., the Supreme Court summarized the general *978 rules used to determine whether a statutory employment relationship exists: [3] "From a reading of Benson and its progeny the following general rules or method of analysis can be gleaned.
  • Recatto v. Bayou Steel Corp. 508 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    In memorandum submitted to the trial court and in briefs filed in this court the parties agree that the controlling law is as stated in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., Rowe v. Northwestern National Ins.
  • Albin v. Red Stick Const. Co., Inc. 509 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    [3] See also Berry v. Holston Well Serv., Inc., , 936 n. 3 (La.1986) and cases cited therein; Duvalle v. Lake Kenilworth, Inc., (La.App.
  • Chauvin v. Gulf Coast Minerals, Inc. 509 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    In Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., and Rowe v. Northwestern Nat.
  • Jackson v. Louisiana Power & Light 510 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    es to any property whatsoever resulting from or arising out of the services performed under the Contract or caused by or sustained in connection with the Contract, even for the sole negligence of LP & L. “The plea of ‘statutory employer’ under the provisions of section 1061 is an affirmative defense and the burden of proof is on the party asserting it....” Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Davis v. Material Delivery Service, Inc. 506 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., -98 (La.1983).
  • Cantrell v. BASF Wyandotte 506 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
  • Guillory v. Ducote 509 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Plaintiff and intervenor argue the recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., casts doubt on the "two-contract" statutory employer defense.
  • Williams v. Gervais F. Favrot Co. 499 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    See also Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., , 936 n. 3 (La.1986); 13 Malone & Johnson, supra, Sec.
  • Teague v. Sawyer Drilling Co. 499 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Palmer v. Loyola University 496 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    Applying the three level analysis provided by Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., to the evidence in this record, we find that the record does not establish whether plaintiff is defendant's statutory employee.
  • Roberts v. Amstar Corp. 496 So. 2d 1146 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    In Berry v. Holston Well Services, Inc., (La.
  • Miller v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 499 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    In the recent case of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., Vizena was cited as an example of an expansive "integral relation" test that was initially in use by the courts of this state.
  • Teague v. Sawyer Drilling Co. 491 So. 2d 14 La. 1986
    The judgment of the Court of Appeal is vacated
  • Teague v. Sawyer Drilling Co. 491 So. 2d 14 La. 1986
    The judgment of the Court of Appeal is vacated