DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., 593 So. 2d 336.

48 citing documents.

  • Danella Taylor Sonnier v. Diversified Healthcare-Lake Charles, LLC D/B/A Lake Charles Care Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    are delictual in nature.”); Sampson v. Wendy’s Mgmt., Inc., (La.
  • Robert Lapoint v. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company and Stephens Tps, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    Inc., 7 Prior to the 1997 amendment, the jurisdictional statement of La.R.S.
  • Wegmann & Babst, LLC v. Feingerts 171 So. 3d 1131 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2015
    Const, art. V, § 16, original jurisdiction of all civil and criminal matters is vested in district courts, except as otherwise authorized by the constitution or “except as heretofore or hereafter provided by law for administrative agency determinations in [workers’] compensation matters.” Sampson v. Wendy’s Management, Inc.
  • Edwards v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board 167 So. 3d 676 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Although the School Board correctly points out that a claim for a retaliatory discharge, which is delictual in nature, is properly heard in district court, see Sampson v. Wendy’s Mgmt, Inc., -40 (La.1992), the damages requested by and awarded to Edwards in this action are for indemnity benefits.
  • St. Tammany Parish Hospital v. Ace American Insurance Co. 81 So. 3d 3 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The court in Craig, was examining the supreme court decision in Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc. which held that a claim of retaliatory discharge was an employment law matter rather than a claim for workers' compensation benefits or penalties for adjudication by the Office of Workers’ Compensation.
  • Claudio v. SILLA COOLING SYSTEMS 55 So. 3d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Const, art. V, § 16, original jurisdiction of all civil and criminal matters is vested in district courts, except as otherwise authorized by the constitution or “except as heretofore or hereafter provided by law for administrative agency determinations in [workers’] compensation matters.” Sampson v. Wendy’s Management, Inc.
  • Johnson v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF STATE UNIV. 32 So. 3d 1041 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Johnson cites Sampson v. Wendy’s Management, Inc., (La.
  • Beutler England Clinic (Marie Kershaw) v. Mermentau Rice, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Our supreme court in Sampson v. Wendy’s Management, Inc., has examined the question of subject matter jurisdiction of the OWC, stating: The claims for which hearing officers are given original, exclusive jurisdiction under [La.R.S.]
  • BEUTLER ENG. CHIRO. CLIN. v. Mermentau Rice 931 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Our supreme court in Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., has examined the question of subject matter jurisdiction of the OWC, stating: The claims for which hearing officers are given original, exclusive jurisdiction under [La.R.S.]
  • Burns v. Apache Corp. 902 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Ms. Burns argues that more proper guidance on this issue comes from Samp *1164 son v. Wendy’s Management, Inc., wherein the supreme court stated that, if the cause of action is primarily one of workers’ compensation, the exclusive jurisdiction of the OWC controls.
  • Farm Fresh Food Supplier, Inc. v. Davis 915 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    It is the opinion of this court that, unlike the retaliatory discharge addressed by the supreme court in Sampson [v. Wendy’s Management, Inc., ], the controversion of a claimant’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits based upon willful false statements or representations is integrally related to the judicious administration of workers’ compensation claims.
  • Travelers Insurance Co. v. Reliable Home Health Care, Inc. 883 So. 2d 436 La. 2004
    See Sampson v. Wendy’s Management, Inc.
  • Craig v. Bantek West, Inc. 885 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc.
  • Darby v. Gilbert Richard, Inc. 838 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    2 Cir. 1/19/94); , citing Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc.[,] (La.
  • Lee v. Ken Burnham Chevrolet/Oldsmobile 837 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In Sampson v. Wendy’s Management, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that workers’ compensation claims and claims for retaliatory discharge are two distinct causes of action.
  • Lanthier v. Family Dollar Store 848 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    2 Cir. 1/19/94); , citing Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc. (La.
  • Lanthier v. Family Dollar Store 827 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    2 Cir. 1/19/94); , citing Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc. (La.
  • Gardner v. Nabors Offshore Corp. 800 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc.
  • King v. Career Training Specialists, Inc. 795 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • Boise Cascade Corp. v. Dean 767 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc.
  • Ledet v. Burger King/Sydran 763 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc.
  • Battiste v. Jani King of New Orleans 753 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Sampson v. Wendy’s Management, Inc.
  • Derouen v. C & D PRODUCTION SPECIALIST 718 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    at p. 6; 76 (quoting Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., ); but see Jones v. Trendsetter Production Co., Inc., 97-299 (La.App.
  • Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co. v. Weston 712 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc.
  • Menard v. Mama's Fried Chicken 709 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Grant cites Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., for the proposition that the Workers' Compensation Act only grants jurisdiction to the Office of Workers' Compensation to determine "benefits and penalties directly associated with the employee's work-related injury and his receipt of worker's compensation benefits."
  • Smith v. Holloway Sportswear, Inc. 704 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    However, the Louisiana Supreme Court held in Sampson v. Wendy’s Management, Inc., that jurisdiction in a retaliatory discharge suit was vested in the district court and not the OWC.
  • Schiro v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. 703 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Sampson v. Wendy’s Management, Inc. Maquar v. Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Inc.
  • Harding v. Jackson 701 So. 2d 1386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc.
  • Albe v. LOUISIANA WORKERS'COMPENSATION CORP. 700 So. 2d 824 La. 1997
    See, Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., Covington v. A-Able Roofing Inc., 95-1126 (La.App.
  • Grant v. Natchitoches Manor Nursing Home 696 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc.
  • Martin v. Red Simpson, Inc. 692 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc.
  • Wilson v. La. Safety Ass'n of Timberman 690 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    See Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc.
  • Jackson v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 676 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    In Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., the supreme court construed the foregoing statute and specifically explained its bearing upon the OWC's subject matter jurisdiction, viz.
  • Orthopedic Specialists of LA v. WESTERN WASTE IND., INC. 674 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    See Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., Warren Ortego v. CXY Energy, 95-718 (La.App.
  • Covington v. A-Able Roofing, Inc. 670 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    4/28/95); ; Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., and Fontenot v. Flaire, Inc., 26,055 (La.App.
  • Williams v. Midwest Employers Cas. Co. 669 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    See Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc.
  • Eglin v. United Gas Pipeline 670 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    In Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., the court explained that "[t]he claims for which hearing officers are given original, exclusive jurisdiction under LSA-R.S.
  • Ortego v. CXY ENERGY 670 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., Fontenot v. Flaire, Inc., 26,055 (La.App.
  • Harris v. BAG 647 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    1992); Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., Lynn v. Berg Mechanical, Inc.
  • Whittington v. Langston Drilling Co. 643 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    Whittington's motion for rehearing based on Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., was denied.
  • Fontenot v. Flaire, Inc. 641 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION The question of whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide a case based on alleged retaliatory or wrongful discharge of an employee for filing a claim for worker's compensation benefits was recently considered by the Louisiana Supreme Court
  • Bruce v. Ampacet Corp. 634 So. 2d 1351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    However, writs were taken and granted in the Sampson case ( ) and on January 17, 1992, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued two judgments on cases which were heard together: Sampson v. Wendy’s Management, Inc.
  • Coleman v. Sheraton Pierremont 631 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    the supreme court noted that a retaliatory discharge cause of action found in the chapter on worker's compensation was not a worker's compensation matter to be heard by administrative hearing officers, since the cause of action was in tort and/or a claim for civil penalties.
  • Hebert v. LOUISIANA DOTD 630 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
    However, this issue is not before us. The Louisiana Supreme Court held in Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., at 339-40 that "the district court [is] the proper forum in which to bring a claim for retaliatory discharge under LSA-R.S.
  • Trombatore v. Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. 627 So. 2d 1387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Sampson v. Wendy’s Management, Inc., and Maquar v. Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Inc.
  • Moss v. Dixie MacH., Welding & Metal Works, Inc. 617 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    As to the retaliatory discharge claim, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently held in Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., that "the cause of action created by LSA-R.S.
  • Cox v. Glazer Steel Corp. 606 So. 2d 518 La. 1992
    See Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., (La.
  • Maquar v. Transit Management 593 So. 2d 365 La. 1992
    ANALYSIS This case was consolidated with Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., for purposes of oral argument because both cases involve the issue of the nature of an action for retaliatory or discriminatory discharge under LSA-R.S.