DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Carey v. UMC, 553 So. 2d 472.

13 citing documents.

  • Lori Bernier v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, Melissa Schoegel, individually and on behalf of minor child, E.L. … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
    See also Carey v. UMC ( United Mechanical Contractors), ( La.
  • Michael M. Mulkey, Sr. v. Century Indemnity Company, Petroleum Casualty Company, James Ralph Vannoy, R.H. Bretz, Ralph F. … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    In reaching this conclusion, we pointed out that in Carey v. UMC ( United Mechanical Contractors), ( La.
  • Cador v. Deep South Equipment Co. 166 So. 3d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Subsequently, in Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors), the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed an appellate court’s affirmation of the granting of an employer’s exception raising the objection of no cause of action.
  • Tommie Hebert and Melissa Anne Hebert v. J. Oran Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    See Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors)
  • Bergeron v. Murphy Oil, U.S.A., Inc. 903 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    In reinstating the intentional tort claims, the Third Circuit relied on the Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors), wherein the Court held that an exception of no cause of action was an improper procedural vehicle to dismiss an intentional tort claim against an employer.
  • Jones v. Tezeno 758 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors)
  • Barrino v. E. BATON ROUGE SCHOOL BD. 697 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors), Landry v. Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., 94-1274, p. 7 (La.App.
  • Bridges v. Carl E. Woodward, Inc. 663 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • Landry v. Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 653 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    In Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors), the supreme court summarily reversed a dismissal of a 23:1032(B) case on an exception of no cause of action, stating: "The merit of plaintiff's claim is to be determined after findings of fact upon motion for summary judgment or trial on the merits."
  • McKee v. Inspectorate America Corp. 636 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    In Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors), the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed an appellate court's affirmation of the granting of a defendant's exception of no cause of action, stating: Plaintiff's petition asserts that defendants intended to injure him or knew or should *306 have known that his injury was substantially certain to follow.
  • Esteve v. Huntsinger 630 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Although that panel ruled that Master had no right of action, that determination was reversed by our Supreme Court, and the matter was remanded to the district court
  • Trahan v. Trans-Louisiana Gas Co., Inc. 618 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    In Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors), the Supreme Court summarily reversed the appellate court's affirmation of the granting of defendant's exception of no cause of action on this issue, stating: Plaintiff's petition asserts that defendants intended to injure him or knew or should have known that his injury was substantially certain to follow.
  • Rose v. XYZ Cable Co. 600 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Contr.), plaintiff was injured when he was ordered to operate a jackhammer without a helper.