Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Melancon v. Tassin Amphibious Equipment Corp., 427 So. 2d 932.

14 citing documents.

Crockett v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 538 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
1st Cir.1980) writ denied (La.App.
Stelly v. Patterson Services, Inc. 539 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Jackson v. Louisiana Power & Light 510 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Teague v. Sawyer Drilling Co. 499 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc. 488 So. 2d 934 La. 1986
Teague v. Sawyer Drilling Co. 485 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc. 467 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
The factual statements contained in this paragraph result from a reading of the uncontested affidavits filed in connection with this summary judgment and by reference to certain cases in the jurisprudence, i.e. Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., supra, Stelly v. Waggoner Estates, supra, (La.App.
Rachal v. AUDUBON PARK COM'N 467 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Generally a particular activity is within the scope of the principal's trade or business if it is routine or customary, if the principal customarily performs the type of work done by the contractor and that work is an integral part of the work customarily performed by the principal, (La.App.
Ward v. Blache 466 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Holmes v. St. Charles General Hosp. 465 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
in resolving the issue of whether they were the plaintiff's statutory employer on the date of this accident.
Delta Development Co. v. Jurgens 446 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Melancon v. Lorde 435 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Melancon v. Tassin Amphibious Equipment Corp. 433 So. 2d 166 La. 1983
Tolstonog v. Muller Restaurant Supply 430 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
(1983), this Court quoting Blanchard v. Engine & Gas Compressor Services, 613 F.2d 65 (U.S.App., 5th Cir., 1980) set forth the test for determining the existence of a statutory employer: "The proper standard, as we see it, is whether the activity done by the injured employee or his actual immediate employer is par