Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lee v. Katz and Bestoff, Inc., 479 So. 2d 459.

13 citing documents.

Mary L. Brown v. Avoyelles Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
5 Cir.),writ denied, Lee v. Katz & Bestoff, Inc., (La.App.
Brown v. Avoyelles Parish School Bd. 861 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
5 Cir.), writ denied, Lee v. Katz & Bestoff, Inc., (La.App.
Hudson v. JACKSON PARISH SCHOOL BD. 811 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Potvin, supra, citing Lee v. Katz and Bestoff, Inc., (La.
Picard v. Vermilion Parish School Bd. 742 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
In Lee v. Katz and Bestoff, Inc., (La.App.
Beard v. Summit Institute 707 So. 2d 1233 La. 1998
5th Cir.1987), writ den., Lee v. Katz and Bestoff, Inc., (La.App.
Barrilleaux v. Franklin Foundation Hosp. 683 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Blankenship v. Southern Beverage Company, Inc., 520 So.2d at 441 ; Lee v. Katz and Bestoff, Inc., (La.App.
Heirs of Tarver v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals 653 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
As an example of the alleged “unfair advantage” bestowed upon the State by the rule’s 300 hour limitation, plaintiff points to the case of Lee v. Katz and Bestoff, Inc., (La.App.
Huddleston v. Dillard Dept. Store, Inc. 638 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
He relies particularly on the case of Lee v. Katz and Bestoff, Inc., (La.
Potvin v. Wright's Sound Gallery, Inc. 568 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Lee v. Katz and Bestoff, Inc., (La.App.
Garrison v. Burger King Corp. 537 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Blankenship, supra, and Lee v. Katz and Bestoff, Inc., (La.
Blankenship v. Southern Beverage Co. 520 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Lee v. Katz and Bestoff, Inc., (La.
Reuther v. Southern Beverage Co. 520 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Lee v. Katz and Besthoff, Inc., (La.App.
Evans v. Manville Products Corp. 505 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
4th Cir.1982), writ denied Lee v. K & B Corp., (La.App.