DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald, 639 So. 2d 224.

139 citing documents.

  • Potier v. Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. 153 So. 3d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Patrick Terrill Randall v. Xceptional Flooring, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    8/31/00), (quoting Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), -27) as follows: 4 The going and coming rule applies nicely when the employee has a fixed place of work, so that his traveling back and forth between his home and his fixed place of work is almost never in the course of employment.
  • Randall v. Xceptional Flooring, Inc. 129 So. 3d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    3 Cir. 3/29/00), , 70-71 writ denied sub nom., Schaefer v. Templeton, 00-1235 (La.8/31/00), and writ denied, 00-1912 (La.8/31/00), and writ denied, 00-1930 (La.8/31/00), (quoting Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), -27 ) as follows: ■|sThe going and coming rule applies nicely when the employee has a fixed place of work, so that his traveling back and forth between his home and his fixed place of work is almost never in the course of employment.
  • Candler v. Henderson 128 So. 3d 587 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), ; Alford v. State Farm Automobile Ins.
  • Derek Lemaire v. David Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • Lemaire v. Richard 125 So. 3d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Put another way, an act is in the course and scope of one’s employment if it “is of the kind that he is employed to perform, occurs substantially within the authorized limits of time and space, and is activated at least in part by a purpose to inserve the employer.” Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353, p. 4 (La.7/5/94), -27 .
  • Knowles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 113 So. 3d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Gill, supra, at 903 (citing Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94) ).
  • Ruiz v. City of New Orleans 109 So. 3d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94); .
  • Migliore v. Gill 81 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Zeitoun v. City of New Orleans 81 So. 3d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Timmons , 99-3264 at p. 4, 761 So.2d at 510 , citing Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), -27 .
  • Irwin v. Rubens 75 So. 3d 952 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Mayes v. DEEP SOUTH CHEMICAL, INC. 66 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Ralph Mayes v. Deep South Chemical, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Mayes v. Deep South Chemical, Inc. 66 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Macaluso v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. 59 So. 3d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Timmons , 99-3264 at p. 4, 761 So.2d at 510 , citing Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), -27 .
  • MacAluso v. TRAVELERS CAS. AND SUR. CO. 59 So. 3d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Timmons , 99-3264 at p. 4, 761 So.2d at 510 , citing Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), -27 .
  • State v. Brown 26 So. 3d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 3 (La.5/21/96), , Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353, p. 4 (La.7/5/94)
  • Claudia Annette Senac v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Senac v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 22 So. 3d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353, p. 4 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Tonia Sellers, Etc. v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • T.S. v. Rapides Parish School Board 11 So. 3d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Co., Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Wolfe v. TOWN OF HOMER 11 So. 3d 39 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), ; Alford v. State Farm Automobile Ins.
  • Davis v. Green 5 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Ms. Green was off-duty, leaving the premises and |7on a completely personal mission, satisfying none of the criteria set out in Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Aucoin v. Rochel 5 So. 3d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    In Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), -27 , the court stated that an employee is acting within the course and scope of his employment when the employee’s action is the kind that he is employed *205 to perform, occurs substantially within the authorized limits of time and space, and is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer.
  • Woolard v. Atkinson 988 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), ; Alford v. State Farm Automobile Ins.
  • Bergeron v. SMITH & ASSOCIATES D/B/A PRO AUTO RENTALS 986 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Henly v. Phillips Abita Lumber Co. 971 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Latiolais v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INS. CO. 949 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Hilda Latiolais v. State Farm Mutual Auto ins.co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94)
  • Martin v. Pride Offshore Co. 950 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Orgerpn ex reí Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/05/94), .
  • Garcia v. Furnace and Tube Service, Inc. 921 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    art. 2320; Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.05/21/96), ; Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.07/05/94), ; Eichelberger v. Sidney and National Hair Care Center, Inc., 34,040 (La.App.2d Cir.11/03/00), , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.02/09/01), .
  • Bourgeois v. Curry 921 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    For the sake of brevity, we omit discussion of the evolution of this specific area of law, but note that the relevant case law cited by both parties includes Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), ; Benoit v. Capitol Mfg.
  • Albert v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co. 916 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Patrick v. Poisso 882 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    art. 2320; Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), ; Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Cavalier v. Rivere's Trucking, Inc. 897 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    They further contend that under the factors to be considered in determining whether an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employee as set forth in Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), , Glenwood should be held vicariously liable for any liability of Rivere's Trucking based on the control Glenwood exercised over Rivere's Trucking.
  • Bates v. Caruso 881 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353, p. 4 (La.7/5/94), -27 .
  • Stacy v. Minit Oil Change, Inc. 874 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    art. 2320; Baumeister v. Plunkett, supra ; Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Sanborn v. Methodist Behavioral Resources Partnership 866 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • McLin v. Industrial Specialty Contractors 851 So. 2d 1135 La. 2003
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Duplantis v. Dillard's Dept. Store 849 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), -27 .
  • Campbell v. Verrett 829 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353
  • Swartz v. McNabb 830 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Strain v. Williams 835 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    art. 2320; Timmons v. Silman, 99-3264, p. 4 (La.5/16/00), ; Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353, p. 4 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Young v. Mooney 815 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    An employee is acting within the course and scope of his employment when the employee’s action is “of the kind that he is employed to perform, occurs substantially within the authorized limits of time and space, and is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer.” Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), -27 .
  • White v. Canonge 811 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94) .
  • Spears v. Jones 807 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353, p. 4 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Salard v. Diamond M Tile & Marble, Inc. 801 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    3 Cir. 11/26/97) ; , writ denied, 98-806 (La.5/8/98); , following Orgeron [ Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94); ], held as a general rule an employee involved in an accident while traveling to and from work is not acting within the course and scope of his employment and is therefore not entitled to workers' compensation benefits.
  • Young v. First National Bank of Shreveport 794 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
  • Fasullo v. Finley 782 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Phipps v. Bruno Const. 773 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .