DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 737 So. 2d 41.

251 citing documents.

  • Chelette v. RIVERWOOD INTERN. USA, INC. 843 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Riverwood cites the jurisprudence of both East-Garrett, 99-421, and Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), , as evidence that La.R.S.
  • Hilts v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 842 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, pp. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), (citations omitted).
  • Authement v. Shappert Engineering 840 So. 2d 1181 La. 2003
    As stated in Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), , awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers' compensation cases are essentially penal in nature.
  • Flagg v. Hixson Funeral Home 838 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    1 provides for penalties and attorney’s fees when “payment of compensation benefits is not commenced timely, if continued benefits are not paid timely, or if medical benefits are not paid timely, unless ‘the claim is reasonably controverted’ (or the nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer and insurer have no control).” Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 7 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Hills v. Cypress Bayou Casino & Royal 843 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    In Williams v. Rush Masonry, 98-2271 (La.6/29/99); , the supreme court was very clear in distinguishing the imposition of penalties under La.R.S.
  • Moore v. City of New Orleans 839 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    See Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, pp. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist. 836 So. 2d 14 La. 2003
    Williams v. *20 Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ; Sharbono v. Steve Lang & Son Loggers, 97-0110 (La.7/1/97), .
  • Hobson v. East Jefferson General Hospital 837 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    See Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 6 (La.6/29/99), (“[s]ince this 1995 amendment, Section 1201.2 now addresses solely the discontinuance of payment of claims, while Section 1201 now addresses solely the timeliness of commencement of benefit payments and timeliness of continued payments.”) *164 J.E.
  • Albertson's, Inc. v. Moulds 834 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), [,] the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that LSA-R.S.
  • Brown v. Kwok Wong 836 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 8 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Daniel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 833 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Williams v. Rush Masonry Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Gilcrease v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 843 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Williams v. Rush Masonry Inc., 98-2271 (La.06/29/99), .
  • Warren v. Maddox Hauling 832 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    [11] Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99); .
  • Russell v. Snelling Personnel 835 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    See Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Town of Grand Isle v. Eschette 820 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Killett v. Sanderson Farms 818 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that La.
  • Crowson v. L & D Community Care 817 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99); .
  • Champagne v. STATE, LOUISIANA STATE UNIV. 819 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Braithwaite Construction v. Manton 807 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 7 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Figueroa v. Hardtner Medical Center 805 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • K-Mart Corp. v. Landry 807 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Nolan v. Rawls Farming Co. 801 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.06/29/99), .
  • Martin v. Davison Transport, Inc. 796 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    23:1201; Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.06/29/99), ; Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/01/98), ; Shields, supra.
  • Haynes v. Williams Fence and Aluminum 805 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    As quoted by the majority, Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 8 (La.6/29/99); , recognized that awards of penalties and attorney fees are "imposed to discourage indifference and undesirable conduct by employers and insurers."
  • Langley v. Petro Star Corp. of La. 792 So. 2d 721 La. 2001
    Merit Constructors, Inc. v. Hickman, 00-0943, p. 5 (La.1/17/01), ; Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), ; Sharbono at p. 7 , 696 So.2d at 1386 .
  • Charles v. Acadia St. Landry Guest Home 787 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    The Louisiana Supreme Court specifically held in Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, (La.6/29/99); , that only attorney fees are now recoverable under La.R.S.
  • Explained Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist. 780 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    As explained in Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, pp. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), (citations omitted): "Awards of penalties and attorney's fees in workers' compensation are essentially penal in nature, being imposed to discourage indifference and undesirable conduct by employers and insurers.
  • LOUISIANA WORKERS'COMP. CORP. v. Gray 786 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    [4] Williams v. Rush Masonry Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ; Cleveland v. Delhi Guest Home, 29,506 (La.App.
  • Lejeune v. Lawrence Habetz Roofing Co. 782 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    See Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 6 (La.6/29/99), (“[s]ince this 1995 amendment, Section 1201.2 now addresses solely the discontinuance of payment of claims, while Section 1201 now addresses solely the timeliness of commencement of benefit payments and timeliness of continued payments.”) J.E.
  • JE Merit Constructors, Inc. v. Hickman 776 So. 2d 435 La. 2001
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 8 (La.6/29/99), -46 .
  • Langley v. Petro Star Corp. of La. 788 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Lyons v. Bechtel Corp. 788 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc. 98-2271 (La.6/29/99); .
  • Smith v. Gaylord Container Corp. 777 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), , the supreme court made it clear that Section 1201.2, as amended in 1995, applies when an insurer or employer discontinues payment of benefits.
  • McCarroll v. Airport Shuttle, Inc. 773 So. 2d 694 La. 2000
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Insurance Co. of North America v. Labit 772 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that LSA-R.S.
  • Shields v. GNB Technologies, Inc. 768 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    23:1201; Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Bolton v. Tulane University 755 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    See Williams v. Rush Masonry Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Todd v. Security Industrial Ins. 759 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    23:1201.2; Williams v. Rush Masonry Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Hurt v. Superior Cable Installation, Inc. 762 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    See Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ; Bergeron v. Watkins, 98-0717 (La.App.
  • Durham v. Plum Creek Mfg. 760 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Anthony v. BE & K CONST. 760 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    23:1201; Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Haws v. Professional Sewer Rehabilitation, Inc. 763 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 7 (La.6/29/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the difference, as follows: Since the 1995 amendment [to LSA-R.S.
  • City of Eunice v. Credeur 753 So. 2d 226 La. 2000
    23:1201.2; Williams v. Rush, 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), -45 .
  • City of Eunice v. Credeur 753 So. 2d 226 La. 2000
    23:1201.2; Williams v. Rush, 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), -45 .
  • Nunn v. CBC Services, Inc. 750 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), ; Williams v. Rush Masonry Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ; Balsamo v. Jones, 28,885 (La.App.
  • Hulbert v. Boh Bros. 751 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Brister v. Sears Authorized Retail Dealer 753 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    In Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99); , the supreme court explained that La.R.S.
  • Norris v. KAW Transport, Inc. 746 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    According to answers of KAW/Great West to interrogatories propounded by Norris, KAW/Great West discontinued payment of benefits primarily because Norris “continued working after the incident without any complaints known to defendant about the physical problems other than his knee.” 2 In Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99); , the supreme court explained that La.R.S.
  • East-Garrett v. Greyhound Bus Lines 746 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    In Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99); , the supreme court explained that La.R.S.
  • Taylor v. Columbian Chemicals 744 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, supra ; Williams v. Rush Masonry Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ; Balsamo v. Jones, 28,885 (La.App.