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.
8 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1920–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
American Federation Of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Robertsgreen1 sentence2009This definition is also contained in PPM 123-1(20.1). [11] See, e.g.: American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Roberts, 9 F.3d 1464, 1468 (9 Cir.1993) (Correctional institution must show employee's performance, appearance, behavior, speech or odor in some way reflects drug use; a guess is not enough to justify reasonable suspicion testing.); Hansen v. California Dept. of Correction, 868 F.Supp. 271, 272 (N.D.Cal.1994)(Employee's admission of one episode of marijuana use during her eight-year period of employment was sufficient reasonable suspicion.) Compare, Reeves v. Singleton, | 1 | 1 |
Hansen v. California Department of Correctiongreen1 sentence2009This definition is also contained in PPM 123-1(20.1). [11] See, e.g.: American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Roberts, 9 F.3d 1464, 1468 (9 Cir.1993) (Correctional institution must show employee's performance, appearance, behavior, speech or odor in some way reflects drug use; a guess is not enough to justify reasonable suspicion testing.); Hansen v. California Dept. of Correction, 868 F.Supp. 271, 272 (N.D.Cal.1994)(Employee's admission of one episode of marijuana use during her eight-year period of employment was sufficient reasonable suspicion.) Compare, Reeves v. Singleton, | 1 | 1 |
National Treasury Employees Union v. Raabgreen1 sentence2009This definition is also contained in PPM 123-1(20.1). [11] See, e.g.: American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Roberts, 9 F.3d 1464, 1468 (9 Cir.1993) (Correctional institution must show employee's performance, appearance, behavior, speech or odor in some way reflects drug use; a guess is not enough to justify reasonable suspicion testing.); Hansen v. California Dept. of Correction, 868 F.Supp. 271, 272 (N.D.Cal.1994)(Employee's admission of one episode of marijuana use during her eight-year period of employment was sufficient reasonable suspicion.) Compare, Reeves v. Singleton, | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance Companygreen2 sentences1966See Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, 238 La. 250 , 115 So.2d 339 (1959) and Youngblood v. *869 Robison, 239 La. 338 , 118 So.2d 431 , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960)." The defense of contributory negligence is a positive defense which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 1966See Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, 238 La. 250 , 115 So.2d 339 (1959) and Youngblood v. *869 Robison, 239 La. 338 , 118 So.2d 431 , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960)." The defense of contributory negligence is a positive defense which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Youngblood v. Robisongreen2 sentences1966See Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, 238 La. 250 , 115 So.2d 339 (1959) and Youngblood v. *869 Robison, 239 La. 338 , 118 So.2d 431 , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960)." The defense of contributory negligence is a positive defense which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 1966See Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, 238 La. 250 , 115 So.2d 339 (1959) and Youngblood v. *869 Robison, 239 La. 338 , 118 So.2d 431 , 2 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960)." The defense of contributory negligence is a positive defense which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Forrester v. New Orleans Iron Works
green
1 sentence2012Similarly, Forrester v. New Orleans Iron Works, 03-1194 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/23/04) , 869 So.2d 216 , involved a positive test for intoxication which was rebutted by- lay testimony. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Simpson v. Jeanerette Sugar Co.
neutral
2 sentences2012For example, Simpson v. Jeanerette Sugar Co., 95-412 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/95) , 667 So.2d 1087 , writ denied, 96-773 (La.5/3/96), 672 So.2d 688 , involved a positive test for cocaine. 2012For example, Simpson v. Jeanerette Sugar Co., 95-412 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/95) , 667 So.2d 1087 , writ denied, 96-773 (La.5/3/96), 672 So.2d 688 , involved a positive test for cocaine. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
PDT, INC. v. Bell
neutral
1 sentence2012For example, Simpson v. Jeanerette Sugar Co., 95-412 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/95) , 667 So.2d 1087 , writ denied, 96-773 (La.5/3/96), 672 So.2d 688 , involved a positive test for cocaine. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.
green
2 sentences2009This definition is also contained in PPM 123-1(20.1). [11] See, e.g.: American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Roberts, 9 F.3d 1464, 1468 (9 Cir.1993) (Correctional institution must show employee's performance, appearance, behavior, speech or odor in some way reflects drug use; a guess is not enough to justify reasonable suspicion testing.); Hansen v. California Dept. of Correction, 868 F.Supp. 271, 272 (N.D.Cal.1994)(Employee's admission of one episode of marijuana use during her eight-year period of employment was sufficient reasonable suspicion.) Compare, Reeves v. Singleton, 2009This definition is also contained in PPM 123-1(20.1). [11] See, e.g.: American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Roberts, 9 F.3d 1464, 1468 (9 Cir.1993) (Correctional institution must show employee's performance, appearance, behavior, speech or odor in some way reflects drug use; a guess is not enough to justify reasonable suspicion testing.); Hansen v. California Dept. of Correction, 868 F.Supp. 271, 272 (N.D.Cal.1994)(Employee's admission of one episode of marijuana use during her eight-year period of employment was sufficient reasonable suspicion.) Compare, Reeves v. Singleton, | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Reeves v. Singleton
green
1 sentence2009This definition is also contained in PPM 123-1(20.1). [11] See, e.g.: American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Roberts, 9 F.3d 1464, 1468 (9 Cir.1993) (Correctional institution must show employee's performance, appearance, behavior, speech or odor in some way reflects drug use; a guess is not enough to justify reasonable suspicion testing.); Hansen v. California Dept. of Correction, 868 F.Supp. 271, 272 (N.D.Cal.1994)(Employee's admission of one episode of marijuana use during her eight-year period of employment was sufficient reasonable suspicion.) Compare, Reeves v. Singleton, | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Griffin v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences1996A similar policy was upheld by the Supreme Court in Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987). 1996A similar policy was upheld by the Supreme Court in Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hall v. Louisiana State Racing Com'n
green
1 sentence1994The Bourque court discussed a prior case before this court, Hall v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 505 So.2d 744 (La.App. 4th Cir.1987), wherein the suspension of a racehorse trainer's license based upon nothing more than the Racing Commission's in globo introduction of evidence, without any foundation testimony or opportunity for cross-examination, was held invalid. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bourque v. Louisiana State Racing Com'n
green
1 sentence1994To support his position, George relies on the APA, which we have refused to apply here, [5] and Bourque v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 611 So.2d 742 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1992), which also relies on the APA. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Eugene v. Adm'r, Div. of Emp. SEC.
green
1 sentence1988Again, we note that Eugene, supra, indicates that the Fifth Circuit has concluded that voluntary exposure to an environment in which one may inhale marijuana smoke coupled with a positive test result constitutes sufficient evidence to establish a violation of La.R.S. 23:1601(2) as a willful or wanton disregard for the employer's interest or a direct disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect from his employees. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
McConnell v. Salmon
neutral
2 sentences1932In view of such a situation and of the positive requirement of the law, we will, for the present, in this case, as has lately been done in the case of McConnell v. Salmon, 174 La. 606 , 141 So. 73 , content ourselves with assigning oral reasons for the decree herein issued and reserve the right to later file a written opinion in the case. 1932In view of such a situation and of the positive requirement of the law, we will, for the present, in this case, as has lately been done in the case of McConnell v. Salmon, 174 La. 606 , 141 So. 73 , content ourselves with assigning oral reasons for the decree herein issued and reserve the right to later file a written opinion in the case. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
American Life Insurance v. McAden
green
1 sentence1920The only positive rule they are bound to follow, is that contained in Art. 420 of the Code of Practice". 1 A., 256 ; 274; 4 La., 298 , "Provided the amendment does not alter the substance of his demand by making it different from the one originally bought" . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.