DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So. 2d 1205.

182 citing documents.

  • King v. Bryant 822 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Roberson v. August 820 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • Rogers v. Town of Arcadia 813 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    (La.1991); Nicholas v. Allstate Ins.
  • Weathersby v. Jacquet 813 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    ctor's conduct, stated: While each incident alleged by Ms. Bustamento may not necessarily be classified as "outrageous," when her allegations are viewed properly as a whole, consisting of a continuing flow of related acts, by the same actor, stretching across a two-year span, the cumulative effect of them could serve to render such actions "outrageous" and actionable under White [v. Monsanto Co., ], supra.
  • Goldberg v. Moses 811 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • LaBove v. Raftery 802 So. 2d 566 La. 2001
  • LaDay v. Catalyst Technology 818 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Verret v. State Farm Mut.
  • Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Verret v. State Farm Mut.
  • Lann v. Davis 793 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Finally, they argued that the burden of proof for intentional infliction of emotional distress is so elevated, White v. Monsanto *465 Co., that Lann's petition could not possibly be construed to state a cause of action.
  • Partin v. Merchants & Farmers Bank 783 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    That test is one in which a plaintiff must establish that the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous, (La.
  • Labbe v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 786 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    [6] the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that a plaintiff seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress must prove: "(1) that the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous; (2) that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe; and (3) that the defendant desire
  • Taylor v. Johnson 796 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    as follows: (1) that the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous; (2) that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe; and (3) that the defendant desired to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that severe emotional distress would be certain or substantially certain to resu
  • Richardson v. Home Depot USA 808 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Intentional infliction of emotional distress was adopted as a
  • Bell v. Touro Infirmary, Inc. 785 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Stanton v. Tulane University of Louisiana 777 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Johnson v. English 779 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Guilbeaux v. Times of Acadiana, Inc., 94-1270 (La.App.
  • Beard v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 774 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    the supreme court explained the meaning of "intentional act" under Revised Statute 23:1032(B): *290 [T]he person who acts either (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening [95- 1606 La.App.
  • Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co. 765 So. 2d 1017 La. 2000
    We wanted to examine the judgment of the appellate court which affirmed an award of $850,000 for emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life, as well as $15,000 for loss of consortium
  • LaBove v. Raftery 759 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    provides that "[o]ne who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm."
  • DeBlanc v. International Marine Carriers 748 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    NOTES [1] Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94-1497 ((La.App.
  • Lawson v. Straus 750 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    App. 4 Cir. 3/14/96), , writ denied, 96-1709 (La.9/3/96), ().
  • Hall v. Hy-Tech Roofing Services, Inc. 748 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Guarino v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical, 97-926 (La.App.
  • Arledge v. Sherrill 738 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • King v. Phelps Dunbar, LLP 743 So. 2d 181 La. 1999
    we recognized a cause of action for emotional distress intentionally caused by extreme and outrageous conduct.
  • Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co. 739 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems 731 So. 2d 208 La. 1999
    (reversing a jury finding that the employer had committed the intentional tort of the intentional infliction of emotional distress and that the employee could therefore recover under the intentional act exception).
  • Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government v. Houma Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board 729 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Arco Oil & Gas Co. v. DeShazer 728 So. 2d 841 La. 1999
    Moresi v. State, Through Dept. Of Wildlife & Fisheries
  • Dumas v. Angus Chemical Co. 728 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Faul v. Trahan 718 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    The use of the intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy rule of the workers' compensation law is well settled: the court set forth the law concerning "intentional acts" in the workers' compensation context, as follows: LSA-R.S.
  • Succession of Harvey v. Dietzen 716 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • King v. Dunbar 716 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Hammond v. Medical Arts Group, Inc., (La.App.
  • Guarino v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical 712 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    the court set forth the law concerning "intentional acts" in the workers' compensation context, as follows: LSA-R.S.
  • Allen v. Payne & Keller Co., Inc. 710 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Walters v. Rubicon Inc. 706 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    which made official Louisiana's adoption of intentional infliction of emotional distress as a viable cause of action.
  • Webb v. Theriot 704 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • Smith v. Ouachita Parish School Bd. 702 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress The elements for a
  • Barrino v. E. BATON ROUGE SCHOOL BD. 697 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Ulmer v. Frisard 694 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    The Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the conduct which would give rise to recovery for such a : One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.
  • Scamardo v. Dunaway 694 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Plaintiff, Donald A. Scamardo appeals the trial court's grant of defendant, Heber E. Dunaway, Jr.'s, exception of no cause of action on a finding that plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements for a
  • Guilbeaux v. Times of Acadiana, Inc. 693 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • Gaspard v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 688 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • Cowen v. Steiner 689 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • Casto v. Fred's Painting, Inc. 688 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • Sharp v. Noble Drilling Corp. 685 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    The Louisiana _]jiSupreme Court, held that: [I]n order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous; (2) that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe; and (3) that the defendant desired to inflict severe emo
  • Landrum v. Board of Com'rs 685 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Glass v. First United Pentecostal Church 676 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    clearly states the prevailing judicial position in handling claims of intentional infliction of mental distress.
  • Ratcliff v. Boydell 674 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Davis v. Puryear 673 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    See White v. Monsanto Co. (La.