DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bruno v. Harbert Intern. Inc., 593 So. 2d 357.

834 citing documents.

  • Davis v. Claiborne Electric Cooperative, Inc. 56 So. 3d 321 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
  • Tim Weaver v. Southern Erectors, Inc. of Florida La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    3 23:1031[(A)].” Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Jason Lestage v. Nabors Drilling Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    23:1031; Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • John Thibodeaux v. Mechanical Construction Co., LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    23:1021(1) as “an unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a 7 gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.” In Bruno v. Harbert Intern., Inc., the supreme court stated: [T]he plaintiff-worker in a compensation action has the burden of establishing a work-related accident by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Juanita Quinn v. Vidalia Apparel La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    23:1031; Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Thibodeaux v. Mechanical Construction Co. 52 So. 3d 1084 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    23:1021(1) as “an unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a 1 agradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.” In Bruno v. Harbert Intern., Inc., the supreme court stated: [T]he plaintiff-worker in a compensation action has the burden of establishing a work-related accident by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Weaver v. Southern Erectors, Inc. of Florida 53 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    423:1031[ (A) ].” Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Lestage v. Nabors Drilling Co. 54 So. 3d 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    23:1031; Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Quinn v. Vidalia Apparel 54 So. 3d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    23:1031; Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Iberia Medical Center v. Ward 53 So. 3d 421 La. 2010
  • Townsend v. Jefferson Parish School Board 52 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc.
  • Redmann v. Martin's Wine Cellar 51 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Rastegar v. Magnolia School, Inc. 51 So. 3d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    5 Cir. 2/14/06) , , (citing Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, ).
  • Scott v. Super One Foods 48 So. 3d 1133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc., Dugan v. St.
  • Duplessis v. Tulane University Medical Center 47 So. 3d 992 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc.
  • Michael Glass v. Lowe's Home Center, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    In the context of a trial, “findings based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses” demand “great deference to the trier of fact's findings.” Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc.
  • Robert Minor v. J & J Carpet, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Minor v. J & J CARPET, INC. 40 So. 3d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Wilson v. General Motors Corp. 37 So. 3d 602 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., LaPrarie, supra.
  • Shawn Gradney v. Louisiana Commercial Laundry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc.
  • Gradney v. LOUISIANA COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY 38 So. 3d 1115 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc.
  • Ragle Celestine v. Firestone Polymers, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Celestine v. Firestone Polymers, L.L.C. 38 So. 3d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Dugan v. St. Francis Medical Center 34 So. 3d 1157 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    A claimant’s testimony alone may be sufficient to establish an accident provided that “(1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker’s version of the incident, and (2) the woi'ker’s testimony is corroborated by the circumstances following the alleged incident.”
  • Keith Smith v. Boise Cascade, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, expounded on what proof will satisfy an employee’s burden in proving a work-related injury: A worker’s testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden of proof, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the work
  • Edward Trent, Jr. v. Triad Electric & Controls La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    nwitnessed accident in the course and scope of her or his employment occurred if: “(1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker’s version of 5 the incident; and (2) the worker’s testimony is corroborated by the circumstances following the alleged incident.” Butterfield, 951 So.2d at 479 (quoting Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc., ).
  • Smith v. BOISE CASCADE, LLC 34 So. 3d 1000 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, expounded on what proof will satisfy an employee’s burden in proving a work-related injury: A worker’s testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden of proof, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker’s version of the incid
  • Trent v. Triad Electric & Controls, Inc. 34 So. 3d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    e by the employee’s testimony alone that an unwit-nessed accident in the course and scope of her or his employment occurred if: “(1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker’s version of |f,the incident; and (2) the worker’s testimony is corroborated by the circumstances following the alleged incident.” Butterfield, 951 So.2d at 479 (quoting Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc., ).
  • Sandra Williams v. Ace Transportation, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    In Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that an employee’s testimony, on its own, might be sufficient to satisfy the employee’s burden of proof.
  • Williams v. Ace Transportation, Inc. 33 So. 3d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., the Louisiana Su *403 preme Court stated that an employee’s testimony, on its own, might be sufficient to satisfy the employee’s burden of proof.
  • Forbes v. METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER 35 So. 3d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
  • Lowe v. Skyjacker Suspensions 32 So. 3d 340 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc., Daniel, supra; Buxton, supra.
  • Helen R. Jackson v. Life at Home, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Jackson v. Life at Home, L.L.C. 30 So. 3d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Joseph Simpson v. Lafayette Consolidated Government La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    23:1031(A); Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Billy Ray Woodard v. Town of Colfax La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, expounded on what proof will satisfy an employee’s burden in proving a work-related injury: 5 A worker’s testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden of proof, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence d
  • Simpson v. Lafayette Consolidated Government 29 So. 3d 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    23:1031(A); Bruno v. Harberl Int’l Inc.
  • Woodard v. TOWN OF COLFAX 29 So. 3d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, expounded on what proof will satisfy an employee’s burden in proving a work-related injury: |r,A worker’s testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden of proof, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker’s version of the in
  • Cotton v. DELTA QUEEN STEAMBOAT CO., INC. 36 So. 3d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., our Supreme Court held that a worker’s testimony may be sufficient to discharge his burden of proving a work-related accident by a preponderance of the evidence, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker’s version of the incident; and (
  • Kenneth Ardoin v. Firestone Polymers, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    4/27/07), (quoting Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc., ).
  • Ardoin v. Firestone Polymers, LLC 30 So. 3d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    3 Cir. 2/7/07), , writ denied, 07-507 (La.4/27/07), (quoting Br uno v. Harbert Int’l Inc., ).
  • Wendy Ward v. Iberia Medical Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • IBERIA MEDICAL CENTER v. Ward 26 So. 3d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Monica F. Covington v. Kentucky Fried Chicken La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    The employer contends that the record indicates that the requirements of proving an unwitnessed accident were not met and points to the criteria of Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., which provides that: A worker’s testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden of proof, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker’s version of the incident; and (2) the worker’s testimony is corrobo
  • Covington v. Kentucky Fried Chicken 23 So. 3d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    The employer contends that the record indicates that the requirements of proving an unwitnessed accident were not met and points to the criteria of Bruno v. *420 Harbert International, Inc., which provides that: A worker’s testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden of proof, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker’s version of the incident; and (2) the worker’s testimony is corroborated by the circumstance
  • Harrell v. St. Margaret's Daughter's Nursing Home 24 So. 3d 941 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Buxton v. Iowa Police Department 23 So. 3d 275 La. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., Alexander v. Brookshire Grocery Company, 42,855, p. 3 (LaApp.
  • Daniel v. House of Raeford Farms of LA 23 So. 3d 374 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc., Buxton, supra.
  • Viel Olivier v. Olivier Builders La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    1/14/94), Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc.
  • Olivier v. Olivier Builders 19 So. 3d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 96-2840 (La.7/1/97), ; Freeman v. Poulan/Weed Eater, 93-1530 (La.1/14/94), ; Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc.