restrictive standard in Louisiana

2023App. 1 Cir. 12/17/04); 897 So.2d 684, 689 , the Louisiana First Circuit noted, after reviewing the history of the statutory employer doctrine, that the legislature has specifically rejected a restrictive analysis in favor of a more liberal interpretation of the words “integral” and “essential.” And, in recent years, Louisiana courts have frequently found that certain work which is ancillary to the statutory employer’s operations is nevertheless essential to the ability of the statutory employer’s operations.

2009Paul Insurance Company, 04-0026 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/17/04) , 897 So.2d 684 , the first circuit noted, after reviewing the history of the statutory employer doctrine, that the legislature has “specifically rejected a restrictive analysis in favor of a more liberal interpretation of the words “integral” and “essential.” The Jackson court held that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption established by La.

2016While Pride appears to be directly on point to the issue presented in the instant matter, it is important to note that the less restrictive standard applied by the Missouri Court of Appeal followed the United States Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 , 117 S.Ct. 2157 , 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997), which held that "states need not show a compelling state interest in order to apply neutral, generally applicable, laws to religious practices!’.!,- Boeme, however, was superseded by statute and supplanted by the mandates of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of-

2016While Pride appears to be directly on point to the issue presented in the instant matter, it is important to note that the less restrictive standard applied by the Missouri Court of Appeal followed the United States Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 , 117 S.Ct. 2157 , 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997), which held that "states need not show a compelling state interest in order to apply neutral, generally applicable, laws to religious practices!’.!,- Boeme, however, was superseded by statute and supplanted by the mandates of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of-

1986Walters v. Dept. of Police of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La.1984) In addition there is recent jurisprudence that points out “[wjhen hearings were conducted before a hearing examiner, courts have applied a less restrictive standard of review and have made an independent review of the record to determine whether the Commission was arbitrary, capricious or manifestly wrong.” Wollerson v. Dept. of Agriculture, 436 So.2d 1241 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), at 1244, writs denied 441 So.2d 1221 ; See also, Jones v. New Orleans Public Belt R.R.

1984Wollerson, supra. Legal cause exists for disciplinary action against a permanent, classified civil service employee whenever that employee's conduct is detrimental to the efficient and orderly operation of the public service for which he was employed.

2021Zentner, 977 So. 2d at 965 - 66 ( internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) The " zone of danger" test is a less restrictive standard— it limits recovery to plaintiffs who either sustained a physical impact or are within the zone of danger of physical contact.

2007See Johnson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 99 F.Supp.2d 755 (E.D.La.2000) (finding that contractor's work of performing catering services onboard an oil and gas compressor facility was integral and essential to the statutory employer's ability to operate its oil and gas compressor facility); Applegarth v. Transamerican Refining Corp., 00-1547 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/01) ; 781 So.2d 804 , writ denied, 01-0834 (La.5/11/01); 792 So.2d 738 (La.2001) (upholding summary judgment where contractor performed construction at a refinery where the refinery was not engaged in providing construction services);

2007See Johnson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 99 F.Supp.2d 755 (E.D.La.2000) (finding that contractor's work of performing catering services onboard an oil and gas compressor facility was integral and essential to the statutory employer's ability to operate its oil and gas compressor facility); Applegarth v. Transamerican Refining Corp., 00-1547 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/01) ; 781 So.2d 804 , writ denied, 01-0834 (La.5/11/01); 792 So.2d 738 (La.2001) (upholding summary judgment where contractor performed construction at a refinery where the refinery was not engaged in providing construction services);

2000Although the state urged us to modify Garner and adopt a less restrictive rule of criminal liability in felony manslaughter cases, we stated that "even if we were inclined" to do so, "the evidence in the present case was insufficient for a rational juror to conclude that defendant's conduct related to the manufacturing of drugs was a substantial factor in bringing about Calhoun's death." 563 So.2d at 233 .

1996In State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La. 11/27/95), 664 So.2d 367 , our Supreme Court enunciated a less restrictive waiver rule in Sixth Amendment cases.

1995The restrictive rule of Weathers, supra, and its progeny runs counter to the longstanding law of this state, and would hamper the deterrent effect provided by the potential for assessment of frivolous appeal damages.

1992Teague, supra, 489 U.S. at 310 , 109 S.Ct. at 1075 .

1992Teague, supra, 489 U.S. at 310 , 109 S.Ct. at 1075 .

1986Walters v. Dept. of Police of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La.1984) In addition there is recent jurisprudence that points out “[wjhen hearings were conducted before a hearing examiner, courts have applied a less restrictive standard of review and have made an independent review of the record to determine whether the Commission was arbitrary, capricious or manifestly wrong.” Wollerson v. Dept. of Agriculture, 436 So.2d 1241 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), at 1244, writs denied 441 So.2d 1221 ; See also, Jones v. New Orleans Public Belt R.R.

1986Brunson of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore. [1] Although Malone and Johnson, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Workers Compensation Vol. 13, p. 145, argue persuasively for a less restrictive rule under LSA-R.S. 23:1021(6) as to independent contractors then set in place by Lushute v. Diesi , such contrary view has not been adopted by the courts, and should not be newly engrafted into the stream of jurisprudential authority in a summary judgment frame of reference. [2] Nailor v. International Harve

1986Walters v. Dept. of Police of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La.1984) In addition there is recent jurisprudence that points out “[wjhen hearings were conducted before a hearing examiner, courts have applied a less restrictive standard of review and have made an independent review of the record to determine whether the Commission was arbitrary, capricious or manifestly wrong.” Wollerson v. Dept. of Agriculture, 436 So.2d 1241 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), at 1244, writs denied 441 So.2d 1221 ; See also, Jones v. New Orleans Public Belt R.R.

1986Brunson of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore. [1] Although Malone and Johnson, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Workers Compensation Vol. 13, p. 145, argue persuasively for a less restrictive rule under LSA-R.S. 23:1021(6) as to independent contractors then set in place by Lushute v. Diesi , such contrary view has not been adopted by the courts, and should not be newly engrafted into the stream of jurisprudential authority in a summary judgment frame of reference. [2] Nailor v. International Harve

1986Brunson of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore. [1] Although Malone and Johnson, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Workers Compensation Vol. 13, p. 145, argue persuasively for a less restrictive rule under LSA-R.S. 23:1021(6) as to independent contractors then set in place by Lushute v. Diesi , such contrary view has not been adopted by the courts, and should not be newly engrafted into the stream of jurisprudential authority in a summary judgment frame of reference. [2] Nailor v. International Harve

1986Brunson of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore. [1] Although Malone and Johnson, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Workers Compensation Vol. 13, p. 145, argue persuasively for a less restrictive rule under LSA-R.S. 23:1021(6) as to independent contractors then set in place by Lushute v. Diesi , such contrary view has not been adopted by the courts, and should not be newly engrafted into the stream of jurisprudential authority in a summary judgment frame of reference. [2] Nailor v. International Harve

1986Brunson of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore. [1] Although Malone and Johnson, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Workers Compensation Vol. 13, p. 145, argue persuasively for a less restrictive rule under LSA-R.S. 23:1021(6) as to independent contractors then set in place by Lushute v. Diesi , such contrary view has not been adopted by the courts, and should not be newly engrafted into the stream of jurisprudential authority in a summary judgment frame of reference. [2] Nailor v. International Harve

1986Brunson of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore. [1] Although Malone and Johnson, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Workers Compensation Vol. 13, p. 145, argue persuasively for a less restrictive rule under LSA-R.S. 23:1021(6) as to independent contractors then set in place by Lushute v. Diesi , such contrary view has not been adopted by the courts, and should not be newly engrafted into the stream of jurisprudential authority in a summary judgment frame of reference. [2] Nailor v. International Harve

1986Commission, 464 So.2d 919 (La.App. 4th Cir.1985) for a discussion of the manifest error rule where the lower court bases its decision on a record, not live testimony.

1985Accordingly, in such cases a less restrictive standard of review than the manifestly erroneous test of Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978) is applicable.

1984Carbonell v. Department of Health and Human Resources, 444 So.2d 151 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 447 So.2d 1063 (La.1984); cf. La.R.S. 44:964(G)(6); R.

1984Carbonell v. Department of Health and Human Resources, 444 So.2d 151 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 447 So.2d 1063 (La.1984); cf. La.R.S. 44:964(G)(6); R.

1982The restrictive clause following the noun "substances" limits the scope of the "substances" defined therein by restricting the "substance" to only those "having a stimulant effect on the central nervous system." Defendant relies upon the decision of this court in State v. Slayton, 301 So.2d 600 (La.,1974) to support his argument, as this court held in State v. Slayton, supra , that since some isomers of methamphetamines were "inactive" and were included in "over the counter" preparations, those "inactive" methamphetamine compounds were not included in the definition of stimulant but, included,

1982The restrictive clause following the noun "substances" limits the scope of the "substances" defined therein by restricting the "substance" to only those "having a stimulant effect on the central nervous system." Defendant relies upon the decision of this court in State v. Slayton, 301 So.2d 600 (La.,1974) to support his argument, as this court held in State v. Slayton, supra , that since some isomers of methamphetamines were "inactive" and were included in "over the counter" preparations, those "inactive" methamphetamine compounds were not included in the definition of stimulant but, included,

1981See Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); In Re W.B.W., 397 A.2d 143 (D.C.App.1979); In Re A.D.R., 603 S.W.2d 575 (Mo.1980); Haug v. State, 406 A.2d 38 (Del.1979); State v. Hunt, 607 P.2d 297 (Utah 1980); State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.2d 715 (Me.1979). [4] The confession in Dino would have been excluded even under the "totality of circumstances" test, and arguably the announcement of a more restrictive test was dicta and not necessary to the holding. [5] Defendant's mother had gone to the 12th grade and his father to the 8th grade. [6] The presence of the juv

1981See Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); In Re W.B.W., 397 A.2d 143 (D.C.App.1979); In Re A.D.R., 603 S.W.2d 575 (Mo.1980); Haug v. State, 406 A.2d 38 (Del.1979); State v. Hunt, 607 P.2d 297 (Utah 1980); State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.2d 715 (Me.1979). [4] The confession in Dino would have been excluded even under the "totality of circumstances" test, and arguably the announcement of a more restrictive test was dicta and not necessary to the holding. [5] Defendant's mother had gone to the 12th grade and his father to the 8th grade. [6] The presence of the juv

1981See Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); In Re W.B.W., 397 A.2d 143 (D.C.App.1979); In Re A.D.R., 603 S.W.2d 575 (Mo.1980); Haug v. State, 406 A.2d 38 (Del.1979); State v. Hunt, 607 P.2d 297 (Utah 1980); State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.2d 715 (Me.1979). [4] The confession in Dino would have been excluded even under the "totality of circumstances" test, and arguably the announcement of a more restrictive test was dicta and not necessary to the holding. [5] Defendant's mother had gone to the 12th grade and his father to the 8th grade. [6] The presence of the juv

1981See Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); In Re W.B.W., 397 A.2d 143 (D.C.App.1979); In Re A.D.R., 603 S.W.2d 575 (Mo.1980); Haug v. State, 406 A.2d 38 (Del.1979); State v. Hunt, 607 P.2d 297 (Utah 1980); State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.2d 715 (Me.1979). [4] The confession in Dino would have been excluded even under the "totality of circumstances" test, and arguably the announcement of a more restrictive test was dicta and not necessary to the holding. [5] Defendant's mother had gone to the 12th grade and his father to the 8th grade. [6] The presence of the juv