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.
6 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1957–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co.
green
2 sentences1957The burden is upon the employer to prove the defense that the employee's willful failure to cooperate with medical treatment, or his willful misconduct, is the cause of the continued disability, Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., 207 La. 699 , 21 So.2d 878 , and the proof to sustain this defense must be "clear, convincing and conclusive," Williams v. Texsun Supply Corporation, La.App. 1 Cir., 47 So.2d 93 99 . 1957The burden is upon the employer to prove the defense that the employee's willful failure to cooperate with medical treatment, or his willful misconduct, is the cause of the continued disability, Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., 207 La. 699 , 21 So.2d 878 , and the proof to sustain this defense must be "clear, convincing and conclusive," Williams v. Texsun Supply Corporation, La.App. 1 Cir., 47 So.2d 93 99 . | 4 | 1957–1973 |
Williams v. Texsun Supply Corp.
neutral
2 sentences1973Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., 207 La. 699 , 21 So.2d 878 , Guillory v. Reimers-Schneider Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 94 So.2d 134 , Williams v. Texsun Supply Corp., La.App. 1 Cir., 47 So.2d 93 . * * *' Thomas v. Crown-Zellerbach Corporation, La.App. 1 Cir., 101 So.2d 478, 480 . 1957The burden is upon the employer to prove the defense that the employee's willful failure to cooperate with medical treatment, or his willful misconduct, is the cause of the continued disability, Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., 207 La. 699 , 21 So.2d 878 , and the proof to sustain this defense must be "clear, convincing and conclusive," Williams v. Texsun Supply Corporation, La.App. 1 Cir., 47 So.2d 93 99 . | 3 | 1957–1973 |
Guillory v. Reimers-Schneider Company
green
2 sentences1973Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., 207 La. 699 , 21 So.2d 878 , Guillory v. Reimers-Schneider Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 94 So.2d 134 , Williams v. Texsun Supply Corp., La.App. 1 Cir., 47 So.2d 93 . * * *' Thomas v. Crown-Zellerbach Corporation, La.App. 1 Cir., 101 So.2d 478, 480 . 1964Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., 207 La. 699 , 21 So.2d 878 , Guillory v. Reimers-Schneider Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 94 So.2d 134 , Williams v. Texsun Supply Corp., La. | 3 | 1958–1973 |
Thomas v. Crown-Zellerbach Corporation
neutral
2 sentences1973Edwards v. Shreveport Creosoting Co., 207 La. 699 , 21 So.2d 878 , Guillory v. Reimers-Schneider Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 94 So.2d 134 , Williams v. Texsun Supply Corp., La.App. 1 Cir., 47 So.2d 93 . * * *' Thomas v. Crown-Zellerbach Corporation, La.App. 1 Cir., 101 So.2d 478, 480 . 1971However, in Thomas v. Crown-Zellerbach Corporation, 101 So.2d 478 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1958), we said: “The burden is upon the employer to prove the defense that the employee’s willful failure to co-operate with medical treatment, or his willful misconduct, is the cause of the continued disability, and the proof to sustain this defense must be clear, convincing, and conclusive.” After reviewing the record, we cannot conclude that the trial judge was manifestly erroneous in rejecting the defense. | 2 | 1971–1973 |
Blanchard v. Delta Marine Engineering, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004However, the court also stated that, “The burden is upon the employer to prove the defense that the employee’s willful failure to cooperate with medical treatment, or his willful misconduct, is the cause of the continued disability, and the proof to sustain this defense must be clear, convincing, and conclusive.” Blanchard, 252 So.2d at 697 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.