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.

  • Teilla L. Noel v. Home Health Care 2000 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Noel v. Home Health Care 2000, Inc. 867 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    “Arbitrary and capricious behavior consists of willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of useemingly unfounded motivation.” Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Boone v. Mid-State Marketing 867 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/01/98), .
  • Black v. Lofland Co. 869 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Scott v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 873 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Jackson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 868 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Longoria v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 862 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    [2] Williams v. Rush Masonry, *1180 Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ; Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Wilbert Arnold v. Wal-Mart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    12/1/98), viz., that where benefits payments are late, penalties will be imposed unless “the employee’s rights to benefits were reasonably controverted by the employer or his insurer or the nonpayment resulted from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.” In its recent decision in Fontenot
  • Darrell Ranel v. McDonald's La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Arnold v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 858 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    12/1/98), , viz., that where benefits payments are late, penalties will be imposed unless "the employee's rights to benefits were reasonably controverted by the employer or his insurer or the nonpayment resulted from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control."
  • Ranel v. McDonald's 858 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    requires action of a less egregious nature than that required for arbitrary and capricious behavior.’ ” Fontenot, 836 So.2d at 21 (quoting Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 8 (La.12/1/98), ).
  • Dordain v. Anthony Seafood & Lobster House 860 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    The Supreme Court, in Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), , held that statutory penalties and attorney’s fees shall be awarded if the employer or insurer fails to timely pay benefits due claimant pursuant to La.
  • Vila Harris v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    12/1/98), the supreme court defined arbitrary and capricious behavior as “willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation.” The decision to award penalties and attorney fees is a factual determination that will not be reversed
  • Harris v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp. 857 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), , the supreme court defined arbitrary and capricious behavior as "willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation."
  • Leroy Thibodeaux v. National Oilwell, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Thibodeaux v. National Oilwell, Inc. 856 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    28:1201; Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Authement v. Wal-Mart 857 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Thomason v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 852 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    23:1201.2 standards was addressed in Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), , 890: The unambiguous language of La.
  • Stelly v. Health South Rehabilitation 854 So. 2d 960 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Russell v. Snelling Personnel 849 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    23:1201(F); Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 8 (La.12/01/98), .
  • Roque v. Shell Beach Trucking 844 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), , a similar factual scenario was presented.
  • Bradley v. ConAgra Poultry Co. 843 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Barbarin v. TLC Home Health 845 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Flintroy v. Scott Cummins Salvage 839 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/01/98), , the supreme court states: In summary, both penalties and attorney fees are now recoverable under Section 1201 F if the employer or insurer fails to commence payments of benefits timely or to pay continued installments timely (or to pay medical benefits timely) unless the claim is reasonably controverted.
  • McCall v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 846 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , the supreme court stated: To determine whether the claimant's right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La.
  • Lee v. Schumpert 836 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), ; Nowlin v. Breck Const. Co., 30,622 (La.App.
  • Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist. 836 So. 2d 14 La. 2003
    Cartage Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), and Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), , [4] traced the statutory and jurisprudential history of penalty awards in workers' compensation actions.
  • Hobson v. East Jefferson General Hospital 837 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Broun v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 1998— 1063 (La.12/198), .
  • Mallory v. Pineapple Management Services, Inc. 837 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Brown v. Texas iLttfi Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Critser v. Dillard's Department Stores, Inc. 836 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 13 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Smith v. Hansen's Seafood Dock 836 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Gilcrease v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 843 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Williams, supra; Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/01/98), .
  • Warren v. Maddox Hauling 832 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    [6] 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98); .
  • Burns v. St. Frances Cabrini Hosp. 830 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 13 (La.12/1/98); , the supreme court held that "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.'
  • Duhon v. Albertson's, Inc. 829 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    3 Cir. 2/6/02), , writ denied, 02-0720 (La.5/3/02), , quoting Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), , citing BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 104, 211 (6th ed.1990).
  • Fortenberry v. CR Bard, Inc. 830 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    98-1063, p. 8 (La.12/1/98), -890 .
  • Russell v. Snelling Personnel 835 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Rush Masonry, 737 So.2d at 45 -46 (citing Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), , referring to Black's Law Dictionary 104, 211 (6th ed.1990)).
  • Harris v. National Gypsum Co. 829 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In Brown (v. Texas-LA Cartages, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), ), the Supreme Court stated that the arbitrary and capricious standard no longer applies to actions brought |4under La.
  • Johnson v. Louisiana Container Co. 834 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    23:1201(F); Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/01/98); .
  • Feild v. General Motors Corp. 828 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, 98-1063 (La.1/15/99), .
  • Manino v. Ten (10) Minute Oil Change 828 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Tate v. Cabot Corp. 824 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    See also Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98); .
  • Joseph v. JE Merit Constructors, Inc. 822 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court defined "reasonably controverted" as follows: The phrase "reasonably controverted," on the other hand, mandates a different standard.
  • Frank v. Kent Guidry Farms 816 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    23:1201(F); Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/01/98), .
  • Noel v. HOME HEALTH 2000, INC. 816 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    23:1201; Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Crowson v. L & D Community Care 817 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98); .
  • Jackson v. Quikrete Products, Inc. 816 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Johnson v. Transerve 809 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Brown v. Texas-LaA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98); .
  • Hodapp v. Sam's Wholesale 815 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Brown v. Texas LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98); ; citing BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 104, 211 (6th ed.1990).
  • Figueroa v. Hardtner Medical Center 805 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Williams, supra, Citing, Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), (Other citations omitted).