DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., 618 So. 2d 1140.

28 citing documents.

  • Stanley v. Airgas-Southwest, Inc. 171 So. 3d 915 La. 2015
    4 Cir.1994], “[A]n employer’s mere knowledge that a machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the ‘substantial certainty’ require *917 ment.” Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Sibert v. National Oil Well Varco, L.P. 136 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 4/28/93) , , writ denied, 93-2011 (La.11/5/93), .
  • Danos v. Boh Bros. Construction Co. 132 So. 3d 958 La. 2014
    4 Cir.1994], “[A]n employer’s mere knowledge that a machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the ‘substantial certainty’ requirement.” Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Miller v. Sattler Supply Co. 132 So. 3d 386 La. 2014
    4 Cir.1994], “[A]n employer’s mere knowledge that a machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the ‘substantial certainty' requirement.” Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Moreau v. Moreau's Material Yard, LLC 98 So. 3d 297 La. 2012
    “[A]n employer’s mere knowledge that a machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the ‘substantial certainty’ requirement.” Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Tommie Hebert and Melissa Anne Hebert v. J. Oran Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    “[A]n employer’s mere knowledge that a machine is 16 dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the ‘substantial certainty’ requirement.” Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Hebert v. Richard 72 So. 3d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    “[A]n employer’s mere knowledge that a machine isJjjdangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the ‘substantial certainty1 requirement.” Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Daigre v. International Truck & Engine Corp. 67 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    “[A]n employer’s mere knowledge that a machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the ‘substantial certainty’ requirement.” Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Batiste v. Bayou Steel Corp. 45 So. 3d 167 La. 2010
    4 Cir.1994], “[A]n employer’s mere knowledge that a machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the ‘substantial certainty" requirement.” Ar mstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Simoneaux v. Excel Group, LLC 936 So. 2d 1246 La. 2006
    Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Marino v. Martin's Oil Country Tubular, Inc. 931 So. 2d 1089 La. 2006
    “[A]n employer’s mere knowledge that a machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the ‘substantial certainty requirement.” Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Zimko v. American Cyanamid 905 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Reeves , 98-1795 at p. 10, 731 So.2d at 213 (citing Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Hirst v. Thieneman 905 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    5 Cir. 2/25/03), , citing Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Burrow v. Delta Container and XYZ Ins. Co. 887 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Hines v. Riceland Drilling Co. 882 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • David Hines v. Riceland Drilling Company D/B/A Riceland Petroleum Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    “[A]n employer’s mere knowledge that a machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the substantial certainty requirement.” Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Nicks v. Ax Reinforcement Co. 841 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.
  • Cole v. Department of Public Safety 825 So. 2d 1134 La. 2002
    Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Young v. City of Plaquemine 818 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.
  • Barnett v. MERIDIAN RESOURCES & EXPLORATION 815 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Temple v. J & S Communication Contractors Cell Tech Services Partnership 805 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    “[A]n employer’s mere knowledge that a machine is dangerous and that its use creates a high probability that someone will eventually be injured is not sufficient to meet the ‘substantial certainty’ requirement.” Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Labbe v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 786 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Newton & Associates, Inc. v. Sheridan 775 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    *1148 Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.
  • Mouton v. SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY 748 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems 731 So. 2d 208 La. 1999
    Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Serv., Inc. 730 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    In Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.
  • NAT. UNION FIRE INS. CO. v. Cagle 649 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Jasmin v. HNV Cent. Riverfront Corp. 642 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., (La.App.