DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 721 So. 2d 885.

400 citing documents.

  • Lemons v. Georgia Pacific Corp. 976 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Kelly Nash v. Aecom Technology Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    23:1201; Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98)
  • Nash v. AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP. 976 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    23:1201; Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Shannon Campbell v. City of Leesville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Campbell v. City of Leesville 974 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Brown v. Texas-LaCartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Petticrew v. Abacus Capital Corp. 974 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 p. 8 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Mark Maddox v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Maddox v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp. 971 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Hamilton v. Compass Group USA/Morrison 973 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    The meaning of "reasonably controverted" in the context of this statute was addressed in Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , 890: In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase "reasonably controvert" that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.
  • Christopher Cormier v. State of La., Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    12/1/98), the court analyzed similar facts and applied the law as follows: Given the correct interpretation of that portion of La.R.S.
  • Cormier v. STATE, DEPT. OF WILDLIFE 970 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), , the court analyzed similar facts and applied the law as follows: Given the correct interpretation of that portion of La.R.S.
  • Trahan v. City of Crowley 967 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), ; Smith v. Kinder Ret.
  • Michael W. Trahan v. City of Crowley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    12/1/98), Smith v. Kinder Ret.
  • Hayes v. Louisiana State Penitentiary 970 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Rushing v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 965 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271,(La.6/29/99), -46 ( quoting Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), ).
  • Larry Ray Vidrine v. La-Tex Rubber & Specialties, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Vidrine v. LA-TEX RUBBER & SPECIALTIES 958 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    See Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Sims v. BFI WASTE SERVICES, LLC 964 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 8 (La.12/1/98), .
  • James B. Doyle, Jr. v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    3 Cir. 10/20/04)], 884 So.2d [1283] at 1291 (quoting Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), ).
  • Marcia Wyble v. Acadiana Preparatory School La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    12/1/98), the supreme court stated: [T]o determine whether the claimant’s right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La.
  • Doyle v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. 956 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    3 Cir. 10/20/04)], 884 So.2d [1283] at 1291 (quoting Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), ).
  • Wyble v. Acadiana Preparatory School 956 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , the supreme court stated: [T]o determine whether the claimant's right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La.
  • Porter v. Pellerin Construction Co. 958 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), ; Barbarin v. TLC Home Health, 02-1054 (La.App.
  • Ocon v. Regency Motors of Metairie, LLC 957 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    See Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Ella Mae Smith v. Kinder Retirement and Rehabilitation Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Smith v. KINDER RETIREMENT AND REH. CENTER 954 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    See, Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Lee v. Heritage Manor of Bossier City 954 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    The meaning of "reasonably controverted" in the context of this statute was addressed in Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , 890: In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase "reasonably controvert" that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.
  • Lambert v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 945 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed whether the employer was liable for penalties and attorney's fees for its failure to timely pay the correct amount of temporary total disability benefits.
  • Cheryl Lambert v. Brookshire Grocery Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    12/1/98), the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed whether the employer was liable for penalties and attorney’s fees for its failure to timely pay the correct amount of temporary total disability benefits.
  • Bertrand v. Dow Chemical Co. 951 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Guillory v. Bofinger's Tree Service 950 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    See Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • David Mullins v. Concrete & Steel Erectors La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    12/1/98), (quoting Weber v. State, 93-62, p. 8 (La.
  • Mullins v. Concrete & Steel Erectors 940 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Furthermore, "`the purpose of an imposition of penalties is to "nudge the employer into making timely payments when there is no reasonable basis for refusing or delaying its obligation."'" Thomas v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 04-1584, p. 1 (La.2/25/05), ( quoting Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 13 (La.12/1/98), ( quoting Weber v. State, 93-62, p. 8 (La.4/11/94), )).
  • Roussell v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd. 943 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    See Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Reynolds Industrial Contractors v. Fox 935 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Linda Hunter v. Alliance Compressors La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Hunter v. Alliance Compressors 934 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    See Bradley, (citing Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), ).
  • Robert Sepulvado Logging v. Julius Sepulvado La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    12/1/98), the supreme court explained: Arbitrary and capricious behavior consists of willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation.
  • Robert Sepulvado Logging, Inc. v. Sepulvado 931 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    In Brown v. Texas-LaCartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), , the supreme court explained: Arbitrary and capricious behavior consists of willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation.
  • Russell v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 933 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    The term "reasonably controverted" was discussed in Brown v. Texas La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , by the Louisiana Supreme Court: The phrase "reasonably controverted," mandates a different standard.
  • Romero v. Garan's, Inc. 929 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    23:1201(F); Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/01/98), .
  • Ryan v. Blount Bros. Const., Inc. 927 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), , the court explained the "reasonably controverted" standard as follows: .
  • Mitchell v. Alliance Compressors 926 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Doumite, 884 So.2d at 1291 (quoting Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), ).
  • Linda F. Mitchell v. Alliance Compressors La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Thonn v. Slidell Memorial Hospital 930 So. 2d 991 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Roberts v. Thibodaux Healthcare Center 934 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    The term "reasonably controverted" was discussed in Brown v. Texas La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , by the Louisiana Supreme Court: In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase "reasonably controvert" that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.
  • Debra Capdeville v. Winn-Dixie Store 1473 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    12/1/98), by the Louisiana Supreme Court: The phrase “reasonably controverted,” .
  • Shelby Smith v. Morris & Dickson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    12/1/98), as follows: In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase “reasonably controvert” that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.
  • Smith v. Morris & Dickson 924 So. 2d 1217 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    The Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the meaning of "reasonably controverting a claim" in Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , as follows: In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase "reasonably controvert" that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.
  • Capdeville v. WINN-DIXIE STORE NO. 1473 923 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    The term "reasonably controverted" was discussed in Brown v. Texas La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , by the Louisiana Supreme Court: The phrase "reasonably controverted,".