Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lushute v. Diesigreen2 sentences1999See Lushute, 354 So.2d 179 . |9The defendants vaguely address this portion of the independent contractor exception analysis and basically rely on the findings of the trial court. 1984In Lushute v. Diesi, 354 So.2d 179, 182 (La.1978), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Third Circuit's independent contractor test of Carney stating: "We therefore conclude that an independent contractor is covered under the workmen's compensation law only when a substantial part of his work time is spent in manual labor in carrying out the terms of his contract with the principal and the work performed by him is a part of the principals trade, business or occupation." Accordingly, the trial court properly found that the decedent was an independent contractor of Echelon and was entitled to recove | 2 | 2 |
State v. Greenegreen1 sentence2011Dissenting, Judge Belsome had no dispute with the majority’s factual account of the circumstances surrounding the dispute, but found that the majority had gone astray because “we are not permitted to substitute our interpretation of the evidence for that of the fact finder.” Greene , 08-1318, p. 2, 26 So.3d at 282 (Belsome, J., dissenting)(citing State v. Pigford, 05-0477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517, 521 ). | 1 | 1 |
Sandbom v. BASF Wyandotte Corp.green1 sentence2006See Sandbom v. BASF Wyandotte, Corp., 95 0335, p. 11 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/30/96), 674 So.2d 349, 357 . | 1 | 1 |
Siverd v. Permanent General Ins. Co.green1 sentence2006Co., XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 497, 501 (noting that "[w]here two permissible views of the evidence exist, the fact-finder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.") Applying these principles to the facts of this case, the plaintiffs assert both vicarious liability claims arising out of Mr. Joshua's work activity with McCarty and direct liability claims for ELI's independent negligence. [12] Although the plaintiffs' *853 vicarious liability may be precluded by the independent contractor defense (or by the trial court's finding that McCarty was not ne | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Housing Authority of New Orleansgreen2 sentences1986And does hereby agree that the failure to make payment to the Subcontractor as herein provided for any cause not the fault of the Subcontractor, within seven (7) days from the Contractor's receipt of payment or from time payment should be made and provided in Article X, Section 22, or maturity, then the Subcontractor may upon seven (7) days written notice to the Contractor stop work without prejudice to any other remedy he may have." [Emphasis supplied.] The trial court relied upon Miller v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, 175 So.2d 326 (La.App. 4th Cir.1965), modified on other grounds, 249 1986And does hereby agree that the failure to make payment to the Subcontractor as herein provided for any cause not the fault of the Subcontractor, within seven (7) days from the Contractor's receipt of payment or from time payment should be made and provided in Article X, Section 22, or maturity, then the Subcontractor may upon seven (7) days written notice to the Contractor stop work without prejudice to any other remedy he may have." [Emphasis supplied.] The trial court relied upon Miller v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, 175 So.2d 326 (La.App. 4th Cir.1965), modified on other grounds, 249 | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Glenngreen2 sentences1915It has been decided frequently that if the contractor has no privilege the furnisher of materials has none. 4 A., 122 ; 5 A., 432 ; 6 A., 480 ; 26 A., 220 ; 30 A., 993, 996 . 1915The reason is that: “The material men and workmen whom he (the contractor) has employed have no privilege of their own on the building; they are only permitted to avail .themselves pro tanto of his. (the contractor’s) privilege.” 6 N. S., 168, 169; 3 A., 504 ; 26 A., 98 ; 26 A., 221 ; 30 A., 993, 996, 1000, 1001 ; 8 Ct. of App., 291, 418; 5 Ct. of App. 34 (36); 2 Ct. of App., 174; Ct. of App., No. 2273. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cadwallader v. Allstate Insurance Co.
neutral
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Pigford
green
1 sentence2011Dissenting, Judge Belsome had no dispute with the majority’s factual account of the circumstances surrounding the dispute, but found that the majority had gone astray because “we are not permitted to substitute our interpretation of the evidence for that of the fact finder.” Greene , 08-1318, p. 2, 26 So.3d at 282 (Belsome, J., dissenting)(citing State v. Pigford, 05-0477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517, 521 ). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Locascio v. Lake Terrace Center, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1993The one cited case not clearly involving the above obligations, Locascio v. Lake Terrace Center, Inc., 293 So.2d 510 (La.App. 4th Cir.1974) is nonetheless of dubious precedential value as to any “roofer’s exception” to the independent contractor rule because the pertinent facts of the matter are not clearly set forth. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Miller v. Housing Authority of New Orleans
green
1 sentence1986And does hereby agree that the failure to make payment to the Subcontractor as herein provided for any cause not the fault of the Subcontractor, within seven (7) days from the Contractor's receipt of payment or from time payment should be made and provided in Article X, Section 22, or maturity, then the Subcontractor may upon seven (7) days written notice to the Contractor stop work without prejudice to any other remedy he may have." [Emphasis supplied.] The trial court relied upon Miller v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, 175 So.2d 326 (La.App. 4th Cir.1965), modified on other grounds, 249 | 1 | 1986–1986 |
D'Albora v. Tulane University
green
1 sentence1984One cannot employ an independent contractor to do piledriving that one knows will damage a neighbor’s building and escape liability on such a defense; D’Albora v. Tulane University, 274 So.2d 825 (La.App. 4 Cir.1973), writ refused 278 So.2d 504 and 505. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
D'Albora v. Tulane University
green
1 sentence1984One cannot employ an independent contractor to do piledriving that one knows will damage a neighbor’s building and escape liability on such a defense; D’Albora v. Tulane University, 274 So.2d 825 (La.App. 4 Cir.1973), writ refused 278 So.2d 504 and 505. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Dandridge v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York
green
1 sentence1972Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Company, 40 So.2d 761 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1949); affd. 218 La. 453 , 49 So.2d 852 (1950); and Dandridge v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, 192 So. 887 (La.App. 2nd Cir., 1939). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co.
green
1 sentence1972Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Company, 40 So.2d 761 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1949); affd. 218 La. 453 , 49 So.2d 852 (1950); and Dandridge v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, 192 So. 887 (La.App. 2nd Cir., 1939). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co.
green
2 sentences1972Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Company, 40 So.2d 761 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1949); affd. 218 La. 453 , 49 So.2d 852 (1950); and Dandridge v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, 192 So. 887 (La.App. 2nd Cir., 1939). 1972Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Company, 40 So.2d 761 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1949); affd. 218 La. 453 , 49 So.2d 852 (1950); and Dandridge v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, 192 So. 887 (La.App. 2nd Cir., 1939). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Barnhill Bros. v. Louisiana Department of Highways
green
1 sentence1965In Barnhill Brothers, Inc. v. Louisiana Department of Highways, La.App., 147 So. 2d 650 , the court, in holding a contractor was not responsible for cracks occurring in a bridge after its construction distinguished it from prior jurisprudence because LSA-R.S. 9:2771 was subsequently enacted immunizing the contractor from liability. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Ravare v. McCormick & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1950R. & S. S. Co., 131 La. 727 , 60 So. 206 ; Robideaux v. Hebert, 118 La. 1089 , 43 So. 887 , 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 632; Muldry v. Fromherz & Drennan, 142 La. 1087 , 78 So. 126 .’ ” In Ravare v. McCormick & Co., La.App., 166 So. 183, 185 , a definition of an independent contractor and a test to be applied was given by the Court in the following words: “What is an independent contractor? | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Robideaux v. Hebert
green
2 sentences1950R. & S. S. Co., 131 La. 727 , 60 So. 206 ; Robideaux v. Hebert, 118 La. 1089 , 43 So. 887 , 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 632; Muldry v. Fromherz & Drennan, 142 La. 1087 , 78 So. 126 .’ ” In Ravare v. McCormick & Co., La.App., 166 So. 183, 185 , a definition of an independent contractor and a test to be applied was given by the Court in the following words: “What is an independent contractor? 1950R. & S. S. Co., 131 La. 727 , 60 So. 206 ; Robideaux v. Hebert, 118 La. 1089 , 43 So. 887 , 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 632; Muldry v. Fromherz & Drennan, 142 La. 1087 , 78 So. 126 .’ ” In Ravare v. McCormick & Co., La.App., 166 So. 183, 185 , a definition of an independent contractor and a test to be applied was given by the Court in the following words: “What is an independent contractor? | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Robichaux v. Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. Co.
neutral
2 sentences1950R. & S. S. Co., 131 La. 727 , 60 So. 206 ; Robideaux v. Hebert, 118 La. 1089 , 43 So. 887 , 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 632; Muldry v. Fromherz & Drennan, 142 La. 1087 , 78 So. 126 .’ ” In Ravare v. McCormick & Co., La.App., 166 So. 183, 185 , a definition of an independent contractor and a test to be applied was given by the Court in the following words: “What is an independent contractor? 1950R. & S. S. Co., 131 La. 727 , 60 So. 206 ; Robideaux v. Hebert, 118 La. 1089 , 43 So. 887 , 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 632; Muldry v. Fromherz & Drennan, 142 La. 1087 , 78 So. 126 .’ ” In Ravare v. McCormick & Co., La.App., 166 So. 183, 185 , a definition of an independent contractor and a test to be applied was given by the Court in the following words: “What is an independent contractor? | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Muldry v. Fromherz & Drennan
neutral
2 sentences1950R. & S. S. Co., 131 La. 727 , 60 So. 206 ; Robideaux v. Hebert, 118 La. 1089 , 43 So. 887 , 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 632; Muldry v. Fromherz & Drennan, 142 La. 1087 , 78 So. 126 .’ ” In Ravare v. McCormick & Co., La.App., 166 So. 183, 185 , a definition of an independent contractor and a test to be applied was given by the Court in the following words: “What is an independent contractor? 1950R. & S. S. Co., 131 La. 727 , 60 So. 206 ; Robideaux v. Hebert, 118 La. 1089 , 43 So. 887 , 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 632; Muldry v. Fromherz & Drennan, 142 La. 1087 , 78 So. 126 .’ ” In Ravare v. McCormick & Co., La.App., 166 So. 183, 185 , a definition of an independent contractor and a test to be applied was given by the Court in the following words: “What is an independent contractor? | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Succession of Fullerton
green
1 sentence1931In the case of Wellman v. Smith, et al., 114 La. 228 , 38 So. 151 , 152, the Supreme Court considered this question, and in the course of its opinion said: “The -contract provided that no change in the plan, and extra work in that connection, would be paid for unless the work was done in accordance with written order. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Wellman v. Smith
green
1 sentence1931In the case of Wellman v. Smith, et al., 114 La. 228 , 38 So. 151 , 152, the Supreme Court considered this question, and in the course of its opinion said: “The -contract provided that no change in the plan, and extra work in that connection, would be paid for unless the work was done in accordance with written order. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Yerkes v. Richards
green
1 sentence1915The reason is that: “The material men and workmen whom he (the contractor) has employed have no privilege of their own on the building; they are only permitted to avail .themselves pro tanto of his. (the contractor’s) privilege.” 6 N. S., 168, 169; 3 A., 504 ; 26 A., 98 ; 26 A., 221 ; 30 A., 993, 996, 1000, 1001 ; 8 Ct. of App., 291, 418; 5 Ct. of App. 34 (36); 2 Ct. of App., 174; Ct. of App., No. 2273. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Integrity Title Insurance, Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Rau
green
1 sentence1915It has been decided frequently that if the contractor has no privilege the furnisher of materials has none. 4 A., 122 ; 5 A., 432 ; 6 A., 480 ; 26 A., 220 ; 30 A., 993, 996 . | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.