Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Watson v. Amite Mill. Co., Inc., 560 So. 2d 902.

40 citing documents.

Cheryl A. McCain v. Motel 6 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
The panel further cited the case of Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Lonnie Harper v. Boise Paper Holdings, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Harper v. Boise Paper Holdings, LLC 258 So. 3d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
The court in Watson v. Amite Milling Co. , , 906 (La.App.
Stephanie Lemelle Ardoin v. Calcasieu Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Ardoin v. Calcasieu Parish School Board 184 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Prine v. Coastal Bridge Co. 157 So. 3d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
1st Cir.10/29/04), , writ denied, 04-2922 (La.2/4/05), , quoting Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Chailland Business Consultants v. Duplantis 897 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
The test to determine whether the claimant's right to benefits has been reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., , (La.App.
Thomas v. Wal-Mart 849 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
The test to determine whether the claimant's right to benefits has been reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Baullion v. Old American Pottery Co. 801 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Carmean v. Enterprise Products Partners, L.L.P. 804 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
The test to determine whether the employee’s right to benefits was reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., *102 (La.App.
Clay v. Delphi Interior & Lighting Systems 775 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Moreno v. Simonton 779 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Wiltz v. Baudin's Sausage Kitchen 763 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Benandi v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. 760 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Ziegler v. Bagby Construction/LWCC 760 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
5 Cir. 4/15/98) , , citing Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Haws v. Professional Sewer Rehabilitation, Inc. 763 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., , (La.App.
Campbell v. Gootee Const. Co. 756 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Labarcena v. Schwegmann's Supermarkets 716 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
The test to determine whether the employee’s right to | ^benefits was reasonably controverted- was set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Prevost v. Jobbers Oil Transport Co. 713 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Maggard v. Boh Bros. Const. Co. 712 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Antrainer v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 712 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Allen v. Louisiana Wood Moulding Corp. 706 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
App. 3d Cir. 2/5/97), ; Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Kortz v. Colt Energy Services, Inc. 698 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.
Spencer v. Gaylord Container Corp. 693 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Gordon v. Sandersons Farms 693 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Washington v. Lyons Specialty Co. 683 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Gentile, 665 So.2d at 431 ; Johnson, 636 So.2d at 916 ; Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Jackson v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 676 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Citing Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., writ denied, and Holmes v. International Paper, Co., (La.
Augustus v. St. Mary Parish School Bd. 676 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., , (La.App.
Bazar v. Hull 669 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
See Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Starks v. Universal Life Ins. Co. 666 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Triche v. Regional Elec. & Const., Inc. 671 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Tate v. L & a CONTRACTING 643 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Rachal v. Crown Store Equipment Co. 640 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Johnson v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc. 636 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
The test to determine whether the employee's right to benefits was reasonably controverted by the employer is set forth in Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Cloud 627 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Hopes v. Domtar Industries 627 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Ross v. Highlands Ins. Co. 590 So. 2d 1177 La. 1991
Anthony v. Georgia Pacific Corp. 589 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Warren v. H & W Steel Erectors Inc. 569 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Watson v. Amite Milling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Watson v. Amite Milling Co. 567 So. 2d 614 La. 1990
Prior report: La.App., .