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 1984–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Culotta v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Teagreen2 sentences2001Parfait , 97-2104 at 16, 733 So.2d at 24 ; Culotta v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 524 So.2d 259, 262 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 530 So.2d 88 (1988). 1999Culotta v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 524 So.2d 259, 262 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writ denied, 530 So.2d 88 (La.1988). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parfait v. Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Id. 2001Parfait , 97-2104 at 16, 733 So.2d at 24 ; Culotta v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 524 So.2d 259, 262 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 530 So.2d 88 (1988). | 2 | 2001–2002 |
Culotta v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company
green
2 sentences2001Parfait , 97-2104 at 16, 733 So.2d at 24 ; Culotta v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 524 So.2d 259, 262 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 530 So.2d 88 (1988). 1999Culotta v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 524 So.2d 259, 262 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writ denied, 530 So.2d 88 (La.1988). | 2 | 1999–2001 |
Millet v. Container Corp. of America
neutral
2 sentences1988Levitz, supra; Millet v. Container Corp. of America, 459 So.2d 589 (La.App. 5 Cir.1984), writ denied 462 So.2d 211 (La.1985). 1985Additionally, we have previously stated in Frix v. Supreme Catering Service and Aetna Insurance Co., 444 So.2d 710 (La.App. 5th Cir.1984) and Millet v. Container Corporation of America, 459 So.2d 589 (La.App. 5th Cir.1985), writ denied, 462 So.2d 211 (La.1985), that a realistic standard in making this determination is simply whether the employer and its insurer had a "reasonable" basis for a dispute as to the claimant's entitlement to benefits. | 2 | 1985–1988 |
Millet v. Container Corp. of America
neutral
2 sentences1988Levitz, supra; Millet v. Container Corp. of America, 459 So.2d 589 (La.App. 5 Cir.1984), writ denied 462 So.2d 211 (La.1985). 1985Additionally, we have previously stated in Frix v. Supreme Catering Service and Aetna Insurance Co., 444 So.2d 710 (La.App. 5th Cir.1984) and Millet v. Container Corporation of America, 459 So.2d 589 (La.App. 5th Cir.1985), writ denied, 462 So.2d 211 (La.1985), that a realistic standard in making this determination is simply whether the employer and its insurer had a "reasonable" basis for a dispute as to the claimant's entitlement to benefits. | 2 | 1985–1988 |
Levitz Furniture Corp. v. Horne
green
1 sentence1988Levitz, supra; Millet v. Container Corp. of America, 459 So.2d 589 (La.App. 5 Cir.1984), writ denied 462 So.2d 211 (La.1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Frix v. Supreme Catering Service & Aetna Insurance Co.
neutral
1 sentence1985Additionally, we have previously stated in Frix v. Supreme Catering Service and Aetna Insurance Co., 444 So.2d 710 (La.App. 5th Cir.1984) and Millet v. Container Corporation of America, 459 So.2d 589 (La.App. 5th Cir.1985), writ denied, 462 So.2d 211 (La.1985), that a realistic standard in making this determination is simply whether the employer and its insurer had a "reasonable" basis for a dispute as to the claimant's entitlement to benefits. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Nettles v. Bowlin
neutral
1 sentence1984A somewhat similar situation was presented in Nettles v. Bowlin, on rehearing 417 So.2d 1192 (La.App. 1st Cir.) cert. denied 422 So.2d 416 (La.1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Nettles v. Bowlin
green
1 sentence1984A somewhat similar situation was presented in Nettles v. Bowlin, on rehearing 417 So.2d 1192 (La.App. 1st Cir.) cert. denied 422 So.2d 416 (La.1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.