Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Graham v. St. Charles Street Railroad, 18 So. 707.
- JCD Marketing Co. v. Bass Hotels and Resorts, Inc. 812 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
-
Transworld Drilling Co. v. Texas General Resources, Inc.
516 So. 2d 468
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
1656 , (1895)], the ‘black-letter’ Louisiana rule has refused to recognize this tort [See Kline v. Eubanks, 109 La.
-
Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Investment Corp.
433 So. 2d 1080
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Charles Street Railroad, 47 La.Ann 1656, Lewis v. Huie-Hodge Lumber, 121 La.
-
Ustica Enterprises, Inc. v. Costello
434 So. 2d 137
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
1656 , (1895) the court held the plaintiff could recover damages noting defendant's malicious motivation in threatening his employees if they did business with the plaintiff.
-
Sandolph v. P & L Hauling Contractors, Inc.
430 So. 2d 102
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
1656 , (1895); Dussouy, supra .
-
LeBlanc v. Oakmont Marine Corp.
401 So. 2d 397
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
1656 , (1895), as standing for the proposition that an employer may recover under Civil Code art. 2315 for damages it suffers as a result of a tort committed against its employee.
- Valence v. State 280 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
- Bearman v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. 134 So. 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
- May v. Yellow Cab Co. 6 La. App. 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
-
Welsch v. Standard Oil Co.
3 La. App. 734
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Charles Street R. Co., , 18 South.
- Valley v. Clay 92 So. 308 La. 1922
-
Vincent v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co.
74 So. 541
La. 1917
722 , it is said: “If such damages are allowable as such at all under our system, they are allowable only when an element of malice or evil intent, or oppression enters into and forms part of the act.” See, also, , 18 South.
- Patterson v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co. 34 So. 782 La. 1903