DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Campbell, 660 So. 2d 7.

391 citing documents.

  • Smith v. RIVERWOOD INTERN. 810 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Resweber v. Haroil *1178 Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.09/05/95), ; Smalley v. Integrity, Inc., 31,247 (La.App.2d Cir.12/09/98), , writ denied 99-0072 (La.03/19/99), .
  • Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Prine 808 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708, p. 7 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Hodapp v. Sam's Wholesale 815 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Co., 94-2708, p. 7 (La.9/5/95); ( citations omitted ).
  • St. Bernard Parish Police Jury v. Duplessis 809 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Figueroa v. Hardtner Medical Center 805 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), ; Smalley v. Integrity, Inc., *1273 31,247 (La.App.2d Cir.12/9/98), , writ denied, 99-0072 (La.3/19/99), .
  • Allen v. Housing Authority of New Orleans 806 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, 94-3138, p. 7 (La.9/5/95), ; Ard v. Orleans Material & Equipment, 98-0312, p. 3 (La.App.
  • Irving v. Little Sisters of Poor 806 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the requirements for forfeiture of benefits under La.
  • JE Merit Constructors, Inc. v. Smith 806 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708, 94-3138, pp. 1-2, (La.9/5/95), .
  • Clark v. Diamond B. Const. 803 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708, pp. 1-2 (La.9/5/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court identified the circumstances warranting application of the provisions of La.R.S.
  • Mendoza v. Stewart & Associates 806 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), ; Tuminello v. Girling Health Care Inc., 98-977 (La.App.
  • Rhone v. Boh Brothers 804 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Boh Brothers contends that the authority of Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), , compels this Court to order a civil fine or the payment of restitution by the claimant.
  • Parker v. ADM Milling Co. 804 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    5th Cir.1/26/99), , citing Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Gardner v. Nabors Offshore Corp. 800 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, p. *415 14 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Nolan v. Rawls Farming Co. 801 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Construction Co., 94-2708 (La.09/05/95), .
  • LOUISIANA WORKERS'COMP. CORP. v. Gray 799 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.09/05/95), .
  • Lee v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation 798 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Greenhill Nursing Home v. Ferguson 796 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil, Construction Co., 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Hayes v. Industrial Enterprises, Inc. 809 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Section 1208 clearly applies to any willful false statements or representations made “for the purpose of obtaining or defeating any benefit or Inpayment.” Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708, p. 7 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Williams v. Sheridan Construction Co. 811 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708, 94-3138, pp. 1-2, 7 (La.9/5/95), 12 .
  • Boh Bros. Construction Co. v. Price 800 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Harris v. National Gypsum Co. 797 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Construction Co., 94-2708, p. 11 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Mitchell v. Brown Builders, Inc. 793 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Rodriguez v. Freeman Decorating Co. 799 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    23:1208 in Resweber v. Haroil Construction Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated, in pertinent part, as follows: • Section 1208 is clear and unambiguous and as such will be applied as written.
  • Gibson v. Lake Charles Ice Pirates 788 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Co., 94-C-2708, 94-C-3138, p. 7 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Hull v. Fluker Farms 787 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708, 94-3138, pp. 1-2, 7 (La.9/5/95), 12 .
  • LOUISIANA WORKERS'COMP. CORP. v. Gray 786 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), ; Smalley v. Integrity Inc., 31,247 (La.
  • Fuselier v. Kaough & Associates 784 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    In Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, p. 7 (La.9/5/95); , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that the only requirements for the forfeiture of benefits due to La.R.S.
  • Hernandez v. Eskco, Inc. 773 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Lopez v. Home Furnishing Store 772 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Pursuant to the statute, forfeiture shall be ordered if the employer or insurer proves: “1) a false statement or representation, 2) which is willfully made, and 3) which is made for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits.” Resweber v. Haroil Construction Co., 94-2708, p. 11 (La.9/5/95), .
  • KLLM, Inc. v. Reed 771 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Bibins v. St. Francis Cabrini Hosp. 768 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    [10] 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Ring v. Decor Gravure Corp. 768 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. Allen 759 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Defendant cites Resweber v. Haroil Construction Co., 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/1995), in support of his position.
  • Heckel Logging, Inc. v. Pruitt 759 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), ; Bass v. Allen Cannery Company, Inc., 30,635 (La.
  • Skipper v. Acadian Oaks Hosp. 762 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    In Resweber v. Haroil Construction Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95); , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that amendments to La.R.S.
  • Boise Cascade Corp. v. Dean 767 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    As the WCJ noted, the three elements of the Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95); , analysis for finding fraud for the purposes of La.R.S.
  • Ledet v. Burger King/Sydran 763 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    In Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, p. 7 (La.9/5/95); , the supreme court outlined requirements for a forfeiture of benefits under La.R.S.
  • Cole v. Drainage District No. 9 760 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Resweber v. Haroil Const Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Neely v. CA-1 Services 758 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court made the following requirements for forfeiture of benefits: L(l) there is a false statement or representation; (2) it is willfully made; and (3) it is made for the purpose of obtaining or defeating any benefit or payment.
  • Rosson v. Rust Constructors, Inc. 754 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Resweber v. Haroil Construction Co., 94-2708 (La.09/05/95), ; Bass v. Allen Cannery Co., Inc., 30,635 (La.App.2d Cir.06/26/98), , writ denied, 98-2069 (La.11/06/98), ; Le-Blanc v. Grand Isle Shipyard, 95-2452 (La.App.
  • Rapp v. City of New Orleans 750 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    See Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Gay v. Georgia Pacific Corp. 754 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    See Resweber v. Haroil Construction Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), fn.
  • OUR LADY LAKE REG. MED. CENTER v. Helms 754 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Prest v. Empire Machine Works, Inc. 742 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Under this statute, forfeiture shall be ordered if the employer or insurer proves “1) a false statement or representation, 2) which is willfully made, and 3) which is made for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits.” Resweber v. Haroil Construction Co., 94-2708, p. 11 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Smith v. Quarles Drilling Co. 741 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    In Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that a party may satisfy its burden of proving a forfeiture under La.R.S.
  • K-Mart Corp. v. Bice 734 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    However, “it is the date the false statement or misrepresentation was made that is determinative in deciding which version of these provisions apply.” Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), , f.n.
  • Short v. Gaylord Chemical Corp. 731 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Clophus v. Taco Bell Corp./HotN'Now 732 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Supreme Rice Mill v. Guidry 737 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    LAW Citing Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95); , the workers' compensation judge found that Mr. Guidry violated La.R.S.
  • CENLA Steel Erectors v. McDonald 737 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95); .