DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of BR, 646 So. 2d 905.

51 citing documents.

  • Glenn Hankel Versus Jefferson Parish Fire Department La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
    12/8/94), Roberts v. Sewerage & Water Bd.
  • Garrett v. K & B Machine Works, Inc. 194 So. 3d 1110 La. 2016
    Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p, 4 (La.12/8/94), .
  • James Clifford Arrant v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. C/W Marvin Jack Barnett, Jr. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. … La. 2015
    12/8/94), Roberts v. Sewerage & Water Bd.
  • Arrant v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. 169 So. 3d 296 La. 2015
    Rando, supra, pp. 8-9 , 16 So.3d at 1075 (citing Stelly v. Overhead Door Company of Baton Rouge, 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), ; Roberts v. Sewerage & Water Bd.
  • Romious v. CBSL Transportation Services, Inc. 142 So. 3d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • Cook v. Family Care Services, Inc. 121 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In support of her argument, Cook refers this court to Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-569, pp. 7-8 (La.12/8/94), -12 , wherein the supreme court stated: 15A substantive law creates, confers or destroys rights, causes of action or legal duties.
  • Callie Ann Cook v. Family Care Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    12/8/94), -12, wherein the supreme court stated: 3 The statute was later amended by 2010 La.
  • Slade v. State ex rel. University of Louisiana at Monroe 79 So. 3d 463 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Stelly v. Overhead Door Company of Baton Rouge, 94-0569 (La.12/08/94), .
  • Claudio v. SILLA COOLING SYSTEMS 55 So. 3d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    23:1032 was discussed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), , as follows: Louisiana’s dual capacity theory or doctrine pertains to employers with multiple relationships, connections or involvement to the employee’s injury and/or the cause of the injury, which ordinarily would result in liability being imposed upon the employer by operation of law in addition to the provis
  • Morris L. Maynard v. Ricky Hatfield La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Maynard v. Hatfield 40 So. 3d 1162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 08-1168 (La.5/22/09), ; Stelly v. Overhead, Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-569 (La.12/8/94), .
  • Daryel Ledet v. Jo-De Equipment Rental Co., Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Ledet v. JO-DE EQUIPMENT RENTAL CO., INC. 34 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    9 (La.1993); Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94- *1032 569 (La.12/8/94), .
  • Clarence Henry v. Sba Shipyard, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    12/8/94), (citation omitted), for the proposition that “no law can be applied retroactively so as to divest a party of a vested right.” In the instant case, Pulmosan contends that Wise’s failure to take a step in the prosecution of his case for more than three years created a vested right for Pulmosan to have Wise’s cl
  • Henry v. SBA SHIPYARD, INC. 24 So. 3d 956 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Pulmosan cites Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 7 (La.12/8/94), (citation omitted), for the proposition that “no law can be applied retroactively so as to divest a party of a vested right.” In the instant case, Pulmo-san contends that Wise’s failure to take a step in the prosecution of his case for more than three years created a vested right for Pulmosan to have Wise’s claim
  • Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. 16 So. 3d 1065 La. 2009
    Stelly v. Overhead Door Company of Baton Rouge, 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), ; Roberts v. Sewerage & Water Bd.
  • MJ Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 998 So. 2d 16 La. 2008
    & Dev., 96-1419 (La.5/20/97), (holding that "[i]nitially, a court must defer to legislative intent when determining whether a statute should be applied prospectively or retroactively."); Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), (holding that "[w]hen determining whether a statute should apply retrospectively, courts are initially required to ascertain the legislature's intent regarding the retrospective or prospective application of the statute.").
  • Ruffin v. Poland Enterprises, LLC 946 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 4 (La.12/8/94), .
  • Gaspard v. Graves 934 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    23:1032 was discussed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 5 (La.12/8/94), , as follows: Louisiana’s dual capacity theory or doctrine pertains to employers with multiple relationships, connections or involvement to the employee’s injury and/or the cause of the injury, which ordinarily would result in liability being imposed upon the employer by operation of law in addition to the provis
  • Dianne Bates v. Robert C. King La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    12/8/94), found that the language in La.R.S.
  • Bates v. King 899 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    The supreme court in Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-569 (La.12/8/94), , found that the language in La.R.S.
  • Deshotel v. Guichard Operating Co., Inc. 916 So. 2d 72 La. 2004
  • Roberts v. New Orleans Symphony 883 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    In 1994, the Louisiana Supreme Court rendered a decision in Stelly v. Overhead Door, 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), .
  • Williams v. Superior Uniform Group, Inc. 847 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    23:1021 et seq.; Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569 (La.12/08/94), ; Berry v. Insurance Co. of North America, 28,580 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), , writ denied, 97-0091 (La.03/07/97), .
  • Miller v. Grand Casino Coushatta 829 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 3 (La.12/8/94), .
  • Page v. Abigails 799 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of B.R., 94-569 (La.12/8/94); .
  • Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp. 785 So. 2d 1 La. 2001
    & Dev., 96-1419, p. 6 (La.5/20/97), ; Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 7 (La.12/8/94), .
  • Bourgeois v. AP Green Industries, Inc. 783 So. 2d 1251 La. 2001
    & Dev., 96-1419, p. 6 (La.5/20/97), ("Initially, a court must defer to legislative intent when determining whether a statute should be applied prospectively or retroactively."); Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 7 (La.12/8/94), ("When determining whether a statute should apply retrospectively, courts are initially required to ascertain the legislature's intent regarding the retrospective or prospective application of the statute.").
  • Haley v. Calcasieu Parish School Bd. 753 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 5 (La.12/8/94); .
  • Byrne v. Sealy & Co. 742 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    In response, Navios relies on the case of Stelly v. Overhead Door Co., 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), , in arguing that following the 199014amendment to La.
  • Martin v. Stone Container Corp. 729 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    In support they cite Stelly v. Overhead Door Co., 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), .
  • Scott v. Pontchartrain Materials Corp. 717 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 4 (La.12/8/94), .
  • Small v. Baloise Ins. Co. of America 753 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Stelly v. Overhead Door Company of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 9 (La.12/8/94), .
  • Douglas v. Hillhaven Rest Home, Inc. 709 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    This is a post- Stelly [v. Overhead Door Co., (La.
  • O'NEILL v. Thibodeaux 709 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    In Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 9 (La.12/8/94); , the supreme court stated: Normally, the owner of a building remains liable for the condition of the building, and for any resulting injuries arising therefrom, even when it is leased.
  • Chau v. Takee Outee of Bourbon, Inc. 707 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    See generally, e.g., Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of B. R., 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), ; Muse v. Katz, 93-1066 (La.App.
  • Hesse v. Champ Service Line 707 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    They rely instead on Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of B.R., 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), .
  • Legros v. Westlake Polymers Corp. 704 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    These laws reaffirm the concept that the Workers’ Compensation Act is “to insure the tortfeasor is held responsible for the damages he or she causes, and is not permitted to escape liability merely because the victim may be entitled to assert a claim for compensation from the employer.” Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 8 (La.12/8/94); .
  • Lafayette Parish School Board, Sales Tax Division v. State ex rel. Department of Revenue & Taxation 701 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Co., 94-2979 (La.5/22/95); ; Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-569 (La.12/8/94); ; Rousselle v. Plaquemines Parish Sch.
  • Dumestre v. Hansell-Petetin, Inc. 688 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Plaintiff argues that his case is an exception to Louisiana's dual capacity doctrine and cites Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), , in support.
  • Breaux v. Hoffpauir 674 So. 2d 234 La. 1996
  • Dresser Industries v. Reese 673 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Jones v. Airport Systems Intern. 671 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • GEO CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL v. Professional Roofing and Const., Inc. 672 So. 2d 1002 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    12/8/94) ; Tassin v. Slidell Mini-Storage, Inc.
  • LeBlanc v. Continental Grain Co., Inc. 672 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    12/8/94), , relied upon by defendant, was determined prior to Cavalier, supra, and the injury in Stelly occurred prior to the amendment of La.R.S.
  • Harris v. Housing Authority of Mansfield 665 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Succession of Steckler 665 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • Thomas v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVELOPMENT 662 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    12/08/94), , the supreme court recounted the basic principles for interpreting the coverage and immunity provisions of the workers' compensation act: In light of this basic history and policy, we agree with the foregoing authorities that every presumption should be on the side of preserving the general tort or delictual rights o
  • Mitchell v. Dixie Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. 663 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Lieber v. Caddo Levee Dist. Bd. of Com'rs 660 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    12/8/94), ; Rousselle v. Plaquemines Parish School Board, 93-1916 (La.