DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 731 So. 2d 208.

96 citing documents.

  • Nicolas Blanchard v. Action Industries Inc., The Dow Chemical Company and Myron Gibson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
  • Ashley Shortridge v. West Calcasieu Cameron Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    Sys., 98-1795, p. 9 (La.3/12/99), (quoting Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94-1497 (La.App.
  • Mathew Whitehead v. Christus Health Central Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    3/12/99), (quoting Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94–1497 (La.App.
  • Sarah Eilts v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Breakout Kings Production, LLC, and Aaron Nelson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
    3/12/99), Gardner v. Craft, supra.
  • Higgins v. Williams Energy Partner, L.P. 267 So. 3d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Michael G. Field v. Lafayette Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • Field v. Lafayette Parish School Board 205 So. 3d 986 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • Stanley v. Airgas-Southwest, Inc. 171 So. 3d 915 La. 2015
    In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 at pp. 9-10 (La.3/12/99), , we discussed the “substantial certainty” requirement as follows: Believing that someone may, or even probably will, eventually get hurt if a workplace practice is continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act, but instead falls within the range of negligent acts that are covered by workers’ compens
  • Maldonado v. Kiewit Louisiana Co. 152 So. 3d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    See Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
  • Gardner v. Craft 137 So. 3d 69 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Sys., 98-1795 (La.03/12/99), .
  • Sibert v. National Oil Well Varco, L.P. 136 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Inc., 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), ; Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 2000-1335 (La.1/17/01), .
  • Danos v. Boh Bros. Construction Co. 132 So. 3d 958 La. 2014
    In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 at pp. 9-10 (La.3/12/99), , we discussed the “substantial certainty” requirement as follows: Believing that someone may, or even probably will, eventually get hurt if a workplace practice is continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act, but instead falls within the range of negligent acts that are covered by workers’ compens
  • Miller v. Sattler Supply Co. 132 So. 3d 386 La. 2014
    In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 at pp. 9-10 (La.3/12/99), , we discussed the “substantial certainty” requirement as follows: Believing that someone may, or even probably will, eventually get hurt if a workplace practice is continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act, but instead falls within the range of negligent acts that are covered by workers’ compens
  • Humble v. Pafford EMS 116 So. 3d 878 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), ; Crockett, supra.
  • Louis Guillory v. City of Lake Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3/12/99), (quoting Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94-1497 (La.App.
  • Guillory v. City of Lake Charles 157 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Sys., 98-1795, p. 9 (La.3/12/99), (quoting Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94-1497 (La.App.
  • Tammy Simoneaux v. Lafayette Consolidated Government La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 1998–1795 (La.3/12/99)
  • Tammy Simoneaux v. Lafayette Consolidated Government La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 1998–1795 (La.3/12/99)
  • Adams v. City of Shreveport 107 So. 3d 738 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.03/12/99), .
  • Moreau v. Moreau's Material Yard, LLC 98 So. 3d 297 La. 2012
    In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 at pp. 9-10 (La.3/12/99), , we discussed the “substantial certainty” requirement as follows: | ¡¿Believing that someone may, or even probably will, eventually get hurt if a workplace practice is continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act, but instead falls within the range of negligent acts that are covered by workers’ com
  • Lloyd v. Shady Lake Nursing Home, Inc. 92 So. 3d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Jurisprudence explains that “believing that someone may, or even probably will, eventually get hurt if a workplace practice is continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act, but instead falls within the range of negligent acts that are covered by workers’ compensation.” Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), ; Reynolds v. Louisiana Plastic, 44,803 (La.App.2d Cir.10/28/09), , writ denied, 2009-2805 (La.3/5/10), .
  • Kenneth Dale Kelly, Et Ux. v. Boise Building Solutions La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    3/12/99), this court further interpreted Bazley, noting: An injury is intentional, i.e., the product of an intentional act, only when the person who acts either consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or knows that re
  • Kelly v. Boise Building Solutions 92 So. 3d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    3 Cir. 6/3/98) , , reversed on other grounds, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , this court further interpreted Bazley , noting: An injury is intentional, i.e., the product of an intentional act, only when the person who acts either consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or knows that *971 result is substantially cer
  • Roberta Broussard v. Stine Lumber Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    3/12/99), stated (emphasis added): Since 1914, workers‟ compensation has traditionally been a quid quo pro remedy in that the employee is entitled to fixed benefits if his injury occurs during the course and scope of his employment, regardless of the employer’s lack of fault or the employee’s own fault
  • Tommie Hebert and Melissa Anne Hebert v. J. Oran Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 at pp. 9-10 (La.3/12/99), we discussed the “substantial certainty” requirement as follows: Believing that someone may, or even probably will, eventually get hurt if a workplace practice is continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act, but instead falls within the range
  • Hebert v. Richard 72 So. 3d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 at pp. 9-10 (La.3/12/99), , we discussed the “substantial certainty” requirement as follows: Believing that someone may, or even probably will, eventually get hurt if a workplace practice is continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act, but instead falls within the range of negligent acts that are covered by workers’ compens
  • Daigre v. International Truck & Engine Corp. 67 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    This analysis/definition of intentional act was also quoted and followed by the Louisiana Supreme Court (again in a worker’s compensation context) in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
  • Oubre v. PPG Industries, Inc. 62 So. 3d 102 La. 2011
    See Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
  • Crockett v. Therral Story Well Service, Inc. 57 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Reeves v. Structura l Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
  • Batiste v. Bayou Steel Corp. 45 So. 3d 167 La. 2010
    In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 at pp. 9-10 (La.3/12/99), , we discussed the “substantial certainty” requirement as follows: Believing that someone may, or even probably will, eventually get hurt if a workplace practice is continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act, but instead falls within the range of negligent acts that are covered by workers’ compens
  • Brown v. Doe 46 So. 3d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed whether an act by an employee was an intentional act in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 1998-1795, (La.3/12/99), .
  • Jones v. R & R STORES, INC. 30 So. 3d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    3/12/99), ; Thomas v. Fina Oil and Chemical Company, 02-0338, p. 7 (La.App.
  • Rainey v. a ACADIAN INC. 30 So. 3d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Reynolds v. Louisiana Plastic 26 So. 3d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    However, the supreme court also explained that “believing that someone may, or even probably will, eventually get hurt if a workplace practice is continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act, but instead falls within the range of negligent acts that are covered by workers’ compensation.” Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 1998-1795 (La.03/12/99), .
  • Ronald Ables v. Frank C. Minvielle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 1998-1795 (La.3/12/99)
  • Ables v. Minvielle 22 So. 3d 1129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 1998-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
  • Berry v. Valley Gin, Inc. 16 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 1998-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
  • Wakefield v. Kyle 12 So. 3d 468 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , the employer was sued after its supervisor directed the plaintiff and another employee to move a heavy sandblasting pot.
  • Nichols v. HORSESHOE CASINO 999 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    2d Cir.9/19/07) , citing Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
  • Raywood Joseph Broussard v. Terry Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    11/26/03), the court distinguished the facts of that case from the supreme court’s opinion in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), finding that the plaintiff employees “testified that they were very much concerned for their safety and expressed those concerns on numerous occasions” to the supervisor.2 In Robinson, an apparent anomaly in the cases regarding the intentional tort exception, the appellate court affirmed the jury’s finding that t
  • Broussard v. Smith 999 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    App. 1 Cir. 6/27/03), , writ denied, 03-2581 (La.11/26/03), , the court distinguished the facts of that case from the supreme court's opinion in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , finding that the plaintiff employees "testified that they were very much concerned for their safety and expressed those concerns on numerous occasions" to the supervisor.
  • Rogers v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections 982 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/12/99), ; Clinton v. Reigel By-Products, Inc., supra ; Hirst v. Thieneman, XXXX-XXXX (La.App.
  • Marino v. BOH BROS. CONST. CO., LLC 982 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Nevertheless, Simoneaux , citing Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , noted that a belief that someone may eventually get hurt if a workplace practice continued does not rise to the level of an intentional act.
  • Roton v. Vernon E. Faulconer, Inc. 966 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/12/99), .
  • Clinton v. Reigel By-Products, Inc. 965 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
  • Spencer Bertrand v. Robert Moore La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    3/12/99), quoting Larson, 2 A Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 68.13 (1989).
  • Jimmy Vidrine v. Constructors, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    3/12/99), quoting Larson, 2 A Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 68.13 (1989).
  • Heather Hoffman v. Target Corporation of Minnesota La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Hoffman v. Target Corp. of Minnesota 951 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    3 Cir. 3/29/00) , ; Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/1/99), .
  • Christin Decou v. Target Corporation of Minnesota La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    3/12/99), Mouton v. Blue Marlin Specialty Tools, Inc., 01-648 (La.App.