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.

  • Bobby L. Shirley v. J & S Dozer Service, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc.
  • Shirley v. J & S DOZER SERVICES, INC. 12 So. 3d 1109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc.
  • David Bailey v. Aecom La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Further, Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., focuses on serious doubt being cast upon the worker’s version of the accident.
  • Anderson v. BEST WESTERN SUITES HOTELS 11 So. 3d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc.
  • Jerry Anderson v. Best Western Richmond Suites of Shreveport La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc.
  • Glenda Savoy v. St. Landry Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Marvin Arnaud v. Shaw Construction La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    23:1031(A); Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Arnaud v. Shaw Construction 12 So. 3d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    23:1031(A); Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Savoy v. St. Landry Parish School Board 9 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Picquet v. Teco Bulk Terminal 13 So. 3d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Frye v. Olan Mills 7 So. 3d 201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., Alexander v. Brookshire Grocery Company, 42,855 (La.App.
  • Kim Williams v. Averitt Express, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Inc., : 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
  • Gregory Scott v. City of Pineville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    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
  • Bobbie Jeffers v. Kentucky Fried Chicken La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Jeffers v. Kentucky Fried Chicken 7 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Williams v. Averitt Express, Inc. 7 So. 3d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Inc., : 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 circumstances following the alleg
  • Scott v. City of Pineville 8 So. 3d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    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
  • Joseph H. Fontenot, Jr. v. Wal-Mart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    4/19/96), (quoting Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc., ) (quoting, -45 (La.1989)).
  • Clara Evans v. Hampton Inn La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    3 This court has also recognized: : 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
  • Priscilla Ebare v. Cubic Applications, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    23:1031(A); Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Fontenot v. Wal-Mart 5 So. 3d 298 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    3 Cir. 1/31/96), , writ denied, 96-553 (La.4/19/96), (quoting Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., ) (quoting, -45 (La.1989)).
  • Ebare v. Cubic Applications, Inc. 5 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    23:1031(A); Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Evans v. Hampton Inn 6 So. 3d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    | ¿This court has also recognized: : 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 circumstances following the alleg
  • David Bailey v. Aecom La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    3 Cir. 12/30/05), -800, writs denied, 06-585 (La.5/5/06), -636 (La.5/5/06), noted the following: 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
  • Johnson v. City of New Orleans Police Department 4 So. 3d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc.
  • Trahan v. TURNER INDUSTRIES, INC. 999 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Troy Trahan v. Turner Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • J. C. White, Jr. v. Ratcliff Construction Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.” “[T]he plaintiff-worker in a compensation action has the burden of 2 establishing a work-related accident by a preponderance of the evidence.” Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • White v. RATCLIFF CONST. CO., LLC 999 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Lemoine v. Town of Simmesport 998 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Janet C. Lemoine v. Town of Simmesport La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    23:1031; Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Shane M. Sartelle v. Footlocker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    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 seriou
  • Sartelle v. Footlocker 996 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    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
  • McLin v. LeBouef 994 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Portalis v. OUR LADY OF LOURDES REG. MEDIC. 984 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc.
  • Stewart v. Livingston Parish School Bd. 991 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    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 International, Inc.
  • Penton v. CITY OF HAMMOND POLICE DEPT. 991 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Honeycutt v. HENRY'S PLUMBING 981 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    [ ] Additionally, 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 circumstances follo
  • Steve Honeycutt v. Henry's Plumbing La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    [] Additionally, 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 wo
  • Mary Dantley v. Lake Charles Memorial Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    23:1031; Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Dantley v. Lake Charles Memorial Hosp. 978 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Champagne v. Roclan Systems, Inc. 984 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Mark Maddox v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    In considering this assignment of error, we note that “[t]he trial court’s determinations as to whether the worker’s testimony is credible and whether the worker has discharged his or her burden of proof are factual determinations not to be disturbed on review unless clearly wrong or absent a showing of manifest error.” Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
  • Maddox v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp. 971 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Hamilton v. Compass Group USA/Morrison 973 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    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
  • Turner v. DELTA BEV. GROUP/PEPSI AMERICA 973 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
  • Roberts v. D & J Construction Co. 969 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
  • Bernard v. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS 977 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • Buddin v. Conagra Poultry Co. 968 So. 2d 1204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., Newsome v. Atmos Energy, 41,413 (La.
  • Maiurano v. Carriere-Stumm, Inc. 970 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.