Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal Dist., 602 So. 2d 704.

23 citing documents.

Kevin Cope and Roger Laine v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and A&M College La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
2d 1260, 1271 ( holding plaintiff' s supplemental salary was part of her earned compensation); ( La.
David A. Reardon v. Global Awnings of Louisiana, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
art. 2749; Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist., (La.
Daisy v. Plaquemines Parish Government 226 So. 3d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
“[T]here is ample support for finding that contributions to retirement plans are among the emoluments of employment and can be considered deferred compensation or ‘salaries.’ ” Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist., (La.
Harris v. City of Baton Rouge 209 So. 3d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Michael Dunn and the Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Kenner Fire Fighters Association Local 1427 Iaff v. City … 187 So. 3d 404 La. 2016
Health Sciences Center, 04-2482 (La.4/12/05), (quoting Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist., ).
Dean Born v. City of Slidell 180 So. 3d 1227 La. 2015
Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dish, ( (partition of community property); Robert C.S.
Michael O. Read v. Willwoods Community 165 So. 3d 883 La. 2015
Baldwin v. Board of Supervisors for University of Louisiana System 138 So. 3d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District -09 (La.1992); -79 (La.App.
Jack L. Duty v. Louisiana Firefighters' Retirement System La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
As the Louisiana supreme court stated in Fishbein, 898 So.2d at 1265- 66 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted): This court has recognized that retirement contributions represent “an increasingly important part of an employee’s compensation for his services.” Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist., (La.
City of Breaux Bridge v. Charles Thibodeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
ed, provides a three year prescriptive period for personal actions seeking „compensation for services rendered.‟ As the Louisiana supreme court stated in Fishbein: This court has recognized that retirement contributions represent „an increasingly important part of an employee‟s compensation for his services.‟ Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist., (La.
Dill v. 32nd Judicial District Court Judicial Clerk's Fund 27 So. 3d 1056 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Fishbein, supra, at p. 1265, p. 7 , citing: Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist., and T.L.
Alex Guillard v. Copeland's of New Orleans, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
ode art. 2002 which provides that “[a]n obligee must make reasonable efforts to mitigate the damage caused by the obligor’s failure to perform,” and that when he does not, “the obligor may demand that the damages be accordingly reduced.” The issue of mitigation of damages by a laborer/employee has been addressed by the supreme court in Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist., -07 (La.1992) (emphasis added) with the following conclusion: 3 Article 2749 of the Louisiana Civil Code addres
Guillard v. Copeland's of New Orleans, Inc. 971 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
v.Code art.2002 which provides that “[a]n obligee must make reasonable efforts to mitigate the damage caused by the obligor’s failure to perform,” and that when he does not, “the obligor may demand that the damages be accordingly reduced.” The issue of mitigation of damages by a laborer/employee has been addressed by the supreme court in Andrepont v. Lake *454 Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist., -07 (La.1992) (emphasis added) with the following conclusion: | ¿Article 2749 of the Louisiana Civil
Coates v. HILL WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTING CO. 968 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Carlson v. Ewing, 219 La.
Overton v. Shell Oil Co. 937 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Fishbein v. STATE EX REL. LSU 898 So. 2d 1260 La. 2005
Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist.
Fishbein v. State ex rel. Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center 898 So. 2d 1260 La. 2005
This court has recognized that retirement contributions represent “an increasingly important part of an employee’s compensation for his services.” Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist.
Chandler v. Kenyan 862 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Cliburn v. Police Jury Ass'n of Louisiana 770 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
-11 (La.1992) (holding that pursuant to general obligations law, employer was liable to employee for contributions to the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System that would have been made on employee’s behalf during his employment had he not been improperly discharged without cause).
Voitier v. Church Point Wholesale Bev. Co., Inc. 760 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
(citing Blum v. Witco Chemical Corp., 829 F.2d 367 (3rd Cir.1987)).
Campbell v. Elcom of Louisiana, Inc. 728 So. 2d 1035 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Carlson v. Ewing, 219 La.
Police Ass'n of New Orleans v. New Orleans 649 So. 2d 951 La. 1995
3d Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds
Carney v. Boles 643 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
for the proposition that, under Art. 2749, the Carneys had no duty to mitigate their damages.