Cited by

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

96 citing documents.

Decou v. Target Corp. of Minnesota 951 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Sys., 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), ; Mouton v. *474 Blue Marlin Specialty Tools, Inc., 01-648 (La.App.
Simoneaux v. Excel Group, LLC 936 So. 2d 1246 La. 2006
In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , this court discussed the intentional act *1248 exception to the workers' compensation law.
Marino v. Martin's Oil Country Tubular, Inc. 931 So. 2d 1089 La. 2006
See, Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , holding that “ ‘[substantially certain to follow1 requires more than a reasonable probability that an injury will occur and ‘certain’ has been defined to mean ‘inevitable’ or ‘incapable of failing.’ ” Jasmin v. HNV Cent.
Leboeuf v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 934 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 5 (La.3/12/99), ().
Zimko v. American Cyanamid 905 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 6 (La.3/12/99), .
Hirst v. Thieneman 905 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
*348 In regards to the definition of "intent" for the purpose of determining when an intentional tort has been committed, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the following in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , 211: the meaning of "intent" in this context "is that the person who acts either (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct or (2) knows that the result is substantially certain
Bergeron v. Murphy Oil, U.S.A., Inc. 903 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 6 (La.3/12/99), .
Hirst v. Thieneman 901 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , the court recounted Louisiana's appellate decisions where employer's were not held liable under the intentional act exception for violations of safety standards or failing to provide safety equipment as follows: Jasmin v. HNV Central Riverfront Corp., 94-1497 (La.App.
Escande v. Alliance Francaise de la Nouvelle Orleans 894 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
*491 In regards to the definition of “intent” for the purpose of determining when an intentional tort has been committed, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the following in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , 211: the meaning of “intent” in this context “is that the person who acts Leither (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct or (2) knows that the result is substantially certai
Burrow v. Delta Container and XYZ Ins. Co. 887 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
In Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Company, 00-1335, p. 4 (La.1/17/01), , 441 and Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 5 (La.3/12/99), -211 , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that the exclusion is narrow, and that the Louisiana legislature has rejected amendments to the section that would allow double compensation in cases where an employer violated a safety regulation, failed to provide a required safety device or, through a supervisor, act
Hines v. Riceland Drilling Co. 882 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Sys., 98-1795, p. 6 (La.3/12/99), , ( ).
David Hines v. Riceland Drilling Company D/B/A Riceland Petroleum Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Quick v. Ronald Adams Contractor, Inc. 861 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
stated that the words "substantially certain to happen" did not allege an intentional tort.
Conoco, Inc. v. Halter-Calcasieu, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
It is well established that “mere knowledge and appreciation of a risk does not constitute intent.” Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 9-10 (La.3/12/99)
Conoco Inc. v. Halter-Calcasieu LLC 865 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 9-10 (La.3/12/99), .
Robinson v. North American Salt Co. 865 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
Strong v. Interkraft Corp. 850 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
In Howell , this court repeated the supreme court's explanation of "substantial certainty" in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, et al., 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), : The traditional definition is simply a way of relieving the claimant of the difficulty of trying to establish subjective state of mind (desiring the consequences) if he can show substantial certainty that the consequences will follow the act.
Domingue Ex Rel. Domingue v. Allied 849 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
[2] Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 6 (La.3/12/99), .
Nicks v. Ax Reinforcement Co. 841 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
1/17/01), and Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , explain that the exclusion is narrow, and that the Louisiana legislature has rejected amendments to the section that would allow double compensation in cases where an employer violated a safety regulation, failed to provide a required safety device or, through a supervisor, acted with gross negligence.
Thomas v. Fina Oil and Chemical Co. 845 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
INTENTIONAL ACT The question of whether an employer's conduct falls under the intentional act exception to the Act was considered recently by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
Scott v. American Tobacco 830 So. 2d 294 La. 2002
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 9-10 (La.3/12/99), .
Belgard v. American Freightways, Inc. 830 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Later in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , the supreme court again discussed the intentional act exception to the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Cole v. Department of Public Safety 825 So. 2d 1134 La. 2002
DPSC relies on Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , wherein this court had occasion to address the issue of the intentional act exception to the Workers' Compensation Act.
Young v. City of Plaquemine 818 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Sys., 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , the court observed that, since Bazley , the intentional act exception has been narrowly construed and even gross negligence has been found to not meet the intentional act requirement.
Barnett v. MERIDIAN RESOURCES & EXPLORATION 815 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Sys., 98-1795 (La.3/12/99); , the court observed that, since Bazley , the intentional act exception has been narrowly construed and that even gross negligence has been found to not meet the intentional act requirement.
Temple v. J & S Communication Contractors Cell Tech Services Partnership 805 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Two recent supreme court cases, Carder v. Grey Wolf Drilling Company, 00-1835 (La.1/17/01), and Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , explain that the exclusion is narrow, and that the Louisiana legislature has rejected amendments to the section that would allow double compensation in cases where an employer violated a safety regulation, failed to provide a required safety device or, through a supervisor, acted with gross negligence.
Mouton v. Blue Marlin Specialty Tools, Inc. 799 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Reeves [ v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99); ,] 208.
Howell v. Taylor 799 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, et al, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
In regards to the definition of “intent” for the purpose of determining when an intentional tort has been committed, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the following in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 4 (La.3/12/99) , 211: the meaning of “intent” in this context “is that the person who acts either (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct or (2) knows that the result is substantially certain
Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
In regards to the definition of "intent" for the purpose of determining when an intentional tort has been committed, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the following in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 4 (La.3/12/99) , 211: the meaning of "intent" in this context "is that the person who acts either (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct or (2) knows that the result is substantially certain
Henderson v. Claiborne Elec. 793 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
In Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.03/12/99), , the supreme court analyzed legislative history and jurisprudence.
Smith v. TANNER HEAVY EQUIP. CO., INC. 790 So. 2d 615 La. 2001
Carrier v. Grey Wolf, 00-1335 (La.1/17/01), ; Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
LaPoint v. Beaird Industries, Inc. 786 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
Labbe v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 786 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, p. 9 (La.3/12/99); .
Richardson v. Home Depot USA 808 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795, pp. 4-5 (La.3/12/99), .
Carrier v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 776 So. 2d 439 La. 2001
We recently discussed the meaning of the phrase "intentional act" in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), , an intentional tort case arising in the context of a work-related accident.
Walters v. A-Way Tank Service, Inc. 802 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
See Reeves v. Structural Preservation Sys., 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
Keller v. Evans Cooperage, Inc. 771 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
Bonds v. Byrd 765 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
23:1032; Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
Thomas v. Roy D. Lowery Logging, Inc. 760 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Syst., 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
Labbe v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 756 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Reeves [ v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99); ,] 208.
Verret v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 759 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
As explained by the supreme court in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99); , workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for an employee unless the injury complained of resulted from an intentional tort.
Broussard v. St. Francis Nursing Home of Oberlin, Inc. 748 So. 2d 460 La. 1999
See Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/6112/6199), .
Guillory v. Olin Corp. 745 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
3 Cir.1992); Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99); .
Abney v. Exxon Corp. 755 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
The question of whether an employer committed an intentional act under the intentional act exception to the Workers' Compensation Act (the "Act") was considered recently by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .
Broussard v. St. Francis Nursing Home of Oberlin, Inc. 740 So. 2d 646 La. 1999
Francis Nursing Hm/Oberlin; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Allen 33rd Judicial District Court Number C-98-168; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CW98-1978 Granted and remanded to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, for reconsideration in light of Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 98-1795 (La.3/12/99), .