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.

  • Tuminello v. Girling Health Care Inc. 731 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Parfait v. Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. 733 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    In Resweber v. Haroll Construction Company, 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95), , the supreme court noted the requirements for forfeiture of benefits under section 1208 are that (1) 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.
  • Session v. Magnolia School, Inc. 722 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Ard v. Orleans Material & Equipment 727 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, 94-3138, p. 7 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Smalley v. Integrity, Inc. 722 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), ; Harris v. Bancroft Bag Inc., 30,431 (La.App.
  • Moss v. Winward Hosp. 720 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, p. 11 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Varnado v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 720 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    [7] ANALYSIS In Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708, 94-3138, pp. 1-2 (La.9/5/95); , the Supreme Court addressed the proper interpretation and application of La.
  • Bass v. Allen Cannery Co., Inc. 715 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Terry D. Hayes Logging Cont. v. Baxley 715 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Derouen v. C & D PRODUCTION SPECIALIST 718 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 97-2708, 94-3138, pp. 7-8 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Benoit v. Frank's Casing Crew 713 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co. v. Weston 712 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    The court in Grant further cited the supreme court's opinion in Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708, p. 7 (La.9/5/95), , which outlined the requirements for a forfeiture of benefits under La.
  • Reuben v. Tidewater Marine 712 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Freeman v. Best Western Richmond Suites Hotel 711 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Resweber v. Haroil, 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Johnson v. Basic Industries, Inc. 711 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Co., 94-2708, (La.9/5/95), .
  • Harris v. Bancroft Bag, Inc. 714 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Mayo v. CASCO Const. Co., Inc. 712 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    CASCO supports its position by relying on the Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Menard v. Mama's Fried Chicken 709 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Co., 94-2708, (La.9/5/95), .
  • Jones v. Trendsetter Production Co., Inc. 707 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Felan v. F & F TRUCKING, INC. 708 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Co., 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95); .
  • Chenault v. Storehouse Furniture 706 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, 94-3138, p. 11 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Wise v. JE Merit Constructors, Inc. 707 So. 2d 1214 La. 1998
    23:1208.1 found in Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95), .
  • JE Merit Constructors, Inc. v. Butler 700 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • McKarry v. SHONEY 698 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708 (La.9/5/95) .
  • Beddes v. Qwik Pantry 697 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    See Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Richey v. Vanliner Ins. Co. 696 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    The supreme court in Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95); , noted that in order to forfeit benefits, La.R.S.
  • Grant v. Natchitoches Manor Nursing Home 696 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    In Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, 94-3138 (La.9/5/95); , the supreme court noted that in order to forfeit benefits, La.R.S.
  • Employers National Insurance v. Second Injury Board 693 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co., 94-2708, p. 15 (La.9/5/95), ; La.
  • Savoy v. Cecil Perry Imp. Co. 691 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    23:1201(F)(4) was not enacted until 1995, it still applies to a claim based on a prior injury, citing as authority Resweber v. Haroil Construction Co. 94-2708 (La.9/5/95), .
  • Carver v. US Copy, Inc. 694 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    23:1208 the compelling Louisiana Supreme Court opinion dealing with this statute, the three requirements for forfeiture are that (1) there is a false statement, (2) it is wilfully made and (3) it is made for the purpose of obtaining or defeating any benefit or payment.
  • O'CONNER v. Martco Partnership 689 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    *528 In the recent case of Resweber v. Haroil Construction Company, 94-2708 (La.9/5/95); , the court specifically addressed La.R.S.
  • State v. Campbell 683 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    ASSIGNMENT OP ERROR NO. 4 [8] By this assignment, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial after the district attorney sought to elicit “other crimes” or character evidence that defendant “was always carrying a gun.” In State v. Campbell, 95-2158 (La.8/25/95); , the supreme court reversed this court’s order granting a mistrial on this very point.
  • Rivera v. West Jefferson Medical Center 678 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    9/5/95), , the Supreme Court discussed the proper interpretation and application of the two statutes.
  • LeBlanc v. Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc. 676 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Sumner v. Lake Charles Marine 676 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    9/5/95); , the supreme court noted that in order to forfeit benefits, La.R.S.
  • Trapani v. Domino Sugars 675 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Boyette v. Riverwood International 674 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    09/05/95), , stated: Sections 1208 and 1208.1 determine the effect of a false statement or misrepresentation on a workers’ compensation claim.
  • Trench v. Harmony Const. Co. 672 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Boyette v. Riverwood International 669 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    09/05/95), , the supreme court, in addressing anti-fraud provisions of the Worker’s Compensation Act, stated: Sections 1208 and 1208.1 determine the effect of a false statement or misrepresentation on a workers’ compensation claim.
  • Templet v. J.E. Merit Construction Co. 664 So. 2d 439 La. 1995
  • Sumrall v. Luhr Bros. 665 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995