20 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hatcherson v. Diebold, Inc.green2 sentences2009Ms. Decquir, citing the Supreme Court case of, Hatcher v. Diebold, 2003-3263 (La.5/15/01), 784 So.2d 1284 , argues that she had met the clear and convincing evidence standard in proving her claim and she further asserts that “the clear and convincing standard in a worker’s compensation case is an ‘intermediate standard falling somewhere between the ordinary ‘preponderance of the evidence’ civil standard and the beyond a reasonable doubt criminal standard,” Id., p. 4 784 So.2d at 1288 . 2009Ms. Decquir, citing the Supreme Court case of, Hatcher v. Diebold, 2003-3263 (La.5/15/01), 784 So.2d 1284 , argues that she had met the clear and convincing evidence standard in proving her claim and she further asserts that “the clear and convincing standard in a worker’s compensation case is an ‘intermediate standard falling somewhere between the ordinary ‘preponderance of the evidence’ civil standard and the beyond a reasonable doubt criminal standard,” Id., p. 4 784 So.2d at 1288 . | 3 | 15 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Comeaux v. City of Crowley
green
2 sentences2016“These are difficult burdens for the worker, and the changes clearly reflect the intent that awards for total and permanent disability should be very unusual and that maximum awards for SEB for those ‘able to work’ should also be rare.” The supreme court classified the clear and convincing burden of proof as “an ‘intermediate’ standard falling somewhere between the ordinary preponderance of the evidence civil standard and the beyond a reasonable doubt criminal standard.” Id. 2004R.S. 23:1221(1)(c). [1] "Clear and convincing" in the workers' compensation context is "an `intermediate' standard falling somewhere between the ordinary preponderance of the evidence civil standard and the beyond a reasonable doubt criminal standard." Hatcherson v. Diebold, Inc., 00-3263 at p. 4 (La.5/15/01), 784 So.2d 1284, 1288 (citing Black's Law Dictionary 227 (5th ed.1979)); Comeaux v. City of Crowley, 01-0032, p. 9 (La.7/3/01), 793 So.2d 1215, 1220 ; Kaiser v. Western-Southern Ins. | 4 | 2002–2016 |
Gilliam v. Brooks Heating & Air Conditioning
green
2 sentences2018Gilliam , 49,161 at p. 14, 146 So.3d at 744 . 2018Gilliam , 49,161 at p. 14, 146 So.3d at 744 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Hollingsworth v. Steven Garr Logging
neutral
2 sentences2015Hollingsworth v. Steven Garr Logging, 47,884 (La.App.2d Cir.2/27/13), 110 So.3d 1219 ; Gilliam v. Brooks Heating & Air Conditioning, supra. To prove a matter by “clear and convincing” evidence means to demonstrate that the existence of,the disputed fact is highly probable or much more probable than its nonexisténce. 2014Hatcherson v. Diebold, Inc., 00-3263 (La.5/15/01), 784 So.2d 1284 ; Hollingsworth v. Steven Garr Logging, 47,884 (La.App.2d Cir.2/27/13), 110 So.3d 1219 . | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Stobart v. State Through DOTD
green
1 sentence2014Stobart v. State through Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993); Silverman, supra. The “clear and convincing” standard in a workers’ compensation case is an intermediate standard falling somewhere between the ordinary preponderance of the evidence civil standard and the beyond a reasonable doubt criminal standard. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Young v. Physicians & Surgeons Hosp.
neutral
1 sentence2013Hatcherson v. Diebold, Inc., 00-3263 (La.5/15/01), 784 So.2d 1284 ; Young v. Physicians & Surgeons Hosp., 39,348 (La.App.2d Cir.3/2/05), 895 So.2d 723 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kaiser v. Western-Southern Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2004Co., 01-1393, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/15/02), 821 So.2d 52, 58 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Sarrio v. STALLING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
neutral
1 sentence2004Clear *372 and convincing proof has been defined as an "`intermediate' standard falling somewhere between the ordinary preponderance of the evidence civil standard, and beyond the reasonable doubt criminal standard." Sarrio v. Stalling Const. Co., 04-34, p. 7-8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/26/04), 876 So.2d 157, 162 , writ denied, 04-1593 (La.10/15/04), 883 So.2d 1059 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Sarrio v. Stalling Const. Co.
neutral
1 sentence2004Clear *372 and convincing proof has been defined as an "`intermediate' standard falling somewhere between the ordinary preponderance of the evidence civil standard, and beyond the reasonable doubt criminal standard." Sarrio v. Stalling Const. Co., 04-34, p. 7-8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/26/04), 876 So.2d 157, 162 , writ denied, 04-1593 (La.10/15/04), 883 So.2d 1059 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Carrier v. Debarge's College Junction
neutral
1 sentence2004To prove a matter by clear and convincing evidence requires the employee "demonstrate that the existence of a disputed fact is highly probable [or] much more probable than its nonexistence." Carrier v. Debarge's College Junction, 95-18, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/27/95), 673 So.2d 1043, 1047 , writ denied, 96-472 (La.4/8/96), 671 So.2d 337 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Carrier v. Debarge's College Junction
neutral
1 sentence2004To prove a matter by clear and convincing evidence requires the employee "demonstrate that the existence of a disputed fact is highly probable [or] much more probable than its nonexistence." Carrier v. Debarge's College Junction, 95-18, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/27/95), 673 So.2d 1043, 1047 , writ denied, 96-472 (La.4/8/96), 671 So.2d 337 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.