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.
9 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill and Lumber Companygreen2 sentences2000As a corollary it follows that whenever the showing with respect to both requirements is relatively weak a denial of compensation is indicated." Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., 278 So.2d 5, 7 (La.1973). 1993"A strong showing by the claimant with reference to the arise-out-of requirement may compensate for a relatively weak showing on the during-course-of requirement, or vice versa." Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill and Lumber Company, 278 So.2d 5 at 7 (La. 1973). | 2 | 2 |
Bolton v. Tulane University of Louisianagreen2 sentences2004Bolton v. Tulane Univ. of Louisiana, 96-1246, p.11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/29/97), 692 So.2d 1113, 1120 . 2002See Bolton v. Tulane Univ. of Louisiana, 96-1246 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/29/97) , 692 So.2d 1113 (subsequent history omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Mitchell v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co.green1 sentence2000As a corol.lary it follows that .whenever .the showing with respect to both requirements is relatively weak a denial of compensation is indicated.” More specifically, when confronted with the issue of assault and workers’ compensation in Mitchell v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, 341 So.2d 35, 38 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1976), the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal held: “If the employee was actively engaged in the performance of his duties, or even if he was taking a short permissible rest from his labor, he should be protected against assault, without reference to the nature of | 1 | 1 |
Kennedy v. Martin Gas Transp. Co., Inc.green1 sentence1997See Kennedy v. Martin Gas Transportation Co., 96-100 (La.App. 3d Cir. 8/21/96), 680 So.2d 1195, 1196 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Francisco v. Harris Management Co.
green
1 sentence1996As a corollary it follows that whenever the showing with respect to both requirements is relatively weak a denial of compensation is indicated. [Citations omitted.] See also Franciso v. Harris Management Company, 94-136 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/94) , 643 So.2d 386 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Raybol v. Louisiana State University
green
1 sentence1994Raybol v. Louisiana State University, 520 So.2d 724 (La.1988). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Robinson v. F. STRAUSS & SONS, INC.
green
1 sentence1993A strong showing by the claimant with reference to the arise-out-of requirement may compensate for a relatively weak showing on the during-course-of requirement, or vice versa.” According to the Supreme Court: “When the employee is clearly in the course of employment because he is actively engaged in the performance of his duties, preparing himself for his work, or taking a short permissible rest from his labors, his injury or death caused by the assault of a third person arises out of employment regardless of the nature of difficulty that prompted the attack or the identity of his assailant.” | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.