DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Menard v. Mama's Fried Chicken, 709 So. 2d 303.

19 citing documents.

  • Leroy Johnson v. Lofton Staffing Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    3 Cir. 3/6/98); writ denied, 98-956 (La.6/5/98)
  • The Wood Group Psn, Inc. v. Todd Romero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    3 Cir. 3/6/98), writ denied, 98-956 (La.6/5/98), we also reversed the WCJ’s refusal to order forfeiture, finding that the claimant’s denial of previous back injuries was not inadvertent or inconsequential because it went to “the crux of the matter,” the causation of the claimant’s present injuries.
  • Wood Group PSN, Inc. v. Romero 215 So. 3d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    3 Cir. 3/6/98) , , writ denied, 98-956 (La.6/5/98), , we also reversed the WCJ’s refusal to order forfeiture, finding that the claimant’s denial of previous back injuries was not inadvertent or inconsequential because it went to “the crux of the matter,” the causation of the claimant’s present injuries.
  • Marvin Arnaud v. Shaw Construction La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    3 Cir. 3/6/98), writ denied, 98-956 (La.
  • Arnaud v. Shaw Construction 12 So. 3d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    3 Cir. 3/6/98), , writ denied, 98-956 (La.6/5/98), .
  • Herrera v. Cajun Co. 960 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
  • Wood v. Brian Harris Autoplex 923 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    3d Cir.3/6/98), , writ denied, 98-0956 (La.6/5/98), ; Coleman v. Sheraton Pierremont, 25,452, pp. 4-6 (La.App.
  • Ravy v. Bridge Terminal Transport 883 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    3 Cir. 3/6/98) , , writ denied, 98-0956 (La.6/5/98); .
  • Phillips v. Lowe's Home Center, Inc. 879 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    3rd Cir.3/6/98), , writ denied, 98-0956 (La.6/5/98), ; Coleman v. Sheraton Pierrmont, 25,452 (La.App.
  • Darby v. Gilbert Richard, Inc. 838 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    3 Cir. 3/6/98); , writ denied, 98-956 (La.6/5/98); , this court held that "[f]alse statements that are inadvertent or inconsequential will not result in forfeiture."
  • Fontenot v. Shelton 834 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    3 Cir. 3/6/98) , , writ denied, 98-956 (La.6/5/98), .
  • Morton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 830 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    3rd Cir.03/06/98), , writ denied, 98-956 (La.06/05/98), .
  • Hernandez v. Eskco, Inc. 773 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    3 Cir. 3/6/98) ; , writ denied, 98-956 (La.6/5/98); .
  • KLLM, Inc. v. Reed 771 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    3 Cir. 3/6/98) ; , writ denied, 98-956 (La.6/5/98); .
  • Ring v. Decor Gravure Corp. 768 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    3 Cir. 3/6/98); , writ denied, 98-0956 (La.6/5/98); , this court stated: The requirements for a successful claim under the statute resulting in the absolute bar to compensation benefits are (1) there is a false statement or representation, (2) it is willfully made, *121 and (3) it is made for the purpose of obtaini
  • Neely v. CA-1 Services 758 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    3 Cir. 3/6/98) , , writ denied, 98-0956 (La.6/5/98), , the appellate court found that the employer was clearly prejudiced by the plaintiffs misstatements although Reswe-ber, supra, did not require that the employer prove prejudice as a result of false statements in order for the plaintiff to forfeit benefits under La.
  • Lexington House v. Gleason 719 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    3 Cir. 3/16/98) , , writ denied, 98-956 (La.6/5/98), , because she dissented in that opinion, her dissent was for reasons unrelated to Menard 's holding regarding regarding La.R.S.
  • Johnson v. Basic Industries, Inc. 711 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    3 Cir.3/6/98); , this court recently explained: The requirements for a successful claim under the statute resulting in an absolute bar to compensation benefits are (1) there is a false statement or representation, (2) it is willfully made, and (3) it is made for the purpose of obtaining or defeating any *846 benefit or payment.
  • Mama's Fried Chicken v. Menard 709 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    3 Cir 3/6/98), , in which a separate decision is being rendered by us this day, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.