Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Raybol v. Louisiana State University, 520 So. 2d 724.

40 citing documents.

Kathleen Edigo and David Edigo v. Otis Elevator Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Lafitte-Nesom v. Christus Schumpert Highland 188 So. 3d 1100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
It submits that the claimant must meet both the “arising out of’ and “in the course of’ prongs of § 1031 A, and whether she has succeeded is a “common sense practical question whether the employee’s injury bears some significant relationship to the employer’s business operation.” , 45 Ed. L. Rep.
Wilson v. General Motors Corp. 37 So. 3d 602 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
the supreme court held that a strong showing of “in the course of’ may *605 overcome a weak showing of “arising out of.” The legislature reacted to and limited this ruling by enactment of La.
Sandra Williams v. Ace Transportation, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Williams v. Ace Transportation, Inc. 33 So. 3d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Cindi Babineaux v. Pnk (Lake Charles), LLC, L'Auberge Du Lac Hotel & Casino La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Babineaux v. PNK (Lake Charles), L.L.C. 6 So. 3d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
James R. Duplechain v. Bell Office Supply La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Duplechain v. Bell Office Supply 926 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
McLin v. Industrial Specialty Contractors, Inc. 818 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Matrana v. Argonaut Great Central Insurance Co. 806 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Sallean v. Jefferson Parish Medical Society 788 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
” (a custodial employee of a university, assaulted by a jilted lover while performing her regular employment duties during regular working hours in an unoccupied portion of a dormitory, was entitled to compensation because the “course of employment” showing was clear, and the employee was so totally innocent o
Brown v. Ackel 767 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
O'REGAN v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc. 758 So. 2d 124 La. 2000
Seal v. Bogalusa Community Medical Center 764 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Pitts v. Helmrich & Payne Drilling 739 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Kennedy v. Martin Gas Transp. Co., Inc. 680 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Guillory v. Interstate Gas Station 653 So. 2d 1152 La. 1995
May v. SISTERS OF CHARITY OF INCARNATE WORD 651 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Pappas v. Marine Spill Response Corp. 650 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
In a close case a strong showing of ‘course of employment’ has been held to counterbalance a relatively weak showing of ‘arising out of employment.’ (a custodial employee of a university, assaulted by a jilted lover while performing her regular employment duties during regular working hours in an unoccupied portion of a dormitory, was entitled to compensation because the ‘course of employment’ showing was clear, and the employee was so totally innocent o
Tarver v. Energy Drilling Co. 645 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Francisco v. Harris Management Co. 643 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Guillory v. Interstate Gas Station 640 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
provides that the phrase “arising out of’ suggests an inquiry into the character of or origin of the risk while the term “in the course of’ focuses on the time and place relationship between the risk and the employment.
Bosse v. Westinghouse Elec., Inc. 637 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Weber v. State 635 So. 2d 188 La. 1994
LaPrarie v. Pony Exp. Courier 628 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
stated that the injury or death of an employee arises out of employment regardless of the nature of the difficulty that prompted the attack or regardless of the identity of his assailant, if the employee is clearly in the course of employment because he is actively engaged in the performance of his duties, p
Colletti v. Port Noma, Ltd. 625 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Benoit v. Capitol Mfg. Co. 617 So. 2d 477 La. 1993
Sims v. Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. 613 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
the Supreme *704 Court interpreted the phrases, "arising out of” and “in the course of” according to the court, the terms constitute a dual requirement.
Duncan ex rel. Hahn v. South Central Bell Telephone Co. 608 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
In Duncan, supra, we analyzed the phrases “in the course of” and “arising out of”
Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources 593 So. 2d 346 La. 1992
(a custodial employee of a university, assaulted by a jilted lover while performing her regular employment *350 duties during regular working hours in an unoccupied portion of a dormitory, was entitled to compensation because the "course of employment" showing was clear, and the employee was so totally innoc
Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources 580 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
In applying the principles of the Worker's Compensation Act, expressly stated: The terms arising out of, and in the course of constitute a dual requirement.
Yates v. Naylor Indus. Services, Inc. 569 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Meaux v. Cormier 554 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
In this regard, the Supreme Court, stated the following: "Judicial experience has taught that these two elements, arising out of and in the course of, should not be understood as entirely separate requirements to be rigidly and independently exacted.
Duncan v. South Cent. Bell Telephone 554 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
(hereinafter referred to as Raybol ), where an assault was the basis of a claim for worker's compensation benefits.
Davis v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 552 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Williams v. Regional Transit Authority 546 So. 2d 150 La. 1989
Glory v. ZUPPARDO'S ECONO. SUPERMARKET, INC. 532 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
LaFleur v. Swallow's Rice Mills 532 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Ducote v. Albert 521 So. 2d 399 La. 1988
denied (Watson, J., concurring)

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by