768 So. 2d 65 - Johnson v. Templeton’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD · 397 So. 2d 475 - Bazley v. Tortorich · 639 So. 2d 216 - Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Amb. Serv. · 292 So. 2d 216 - LeBrane v. Lewis · 654 So. 2d 311 - Lewis v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION & DEV.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“■|sThe going and coming rule applies nicely when the employee has a fixed place of work, so that his traveling back and forth between his home and his fixed place of work is almost never in the course of employment. Not all employees, however, work on the employer’s premises or have a fixed place of work. The dispatching of employees to different work locations gives rise to many “shades of gray” in the otherwise “black and white” applications of the going and coming rule. When an employee is required to check in at a certain place and is then dispatched to the work site for that day, he is generally in the course of employment in the travel between the check in place and the work site, but not between home and the check in place. See generally Arthur Larson, Law of Workman’s Compensation § 16 (1993). However, when an employee is instructed to report to different work sites which change periodically, without first reporting to a check in place, there are more variations in the determination of course and scope of employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This court in Bergeron v. Mar-Con, Inc., 97-263 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/26/97) ; 705 So.2d 232 , writ denied, 98-806 (La.5/8/98); 719 So.2d 52 , following Orgeron [ Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94); 639 So.2d 224 ], held as a general rule an employee involved in an accident while traveling to and from work is not acting within the course and scope of his employment and is therefore not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. However, we also cited Orgeron's exception that an employee, required to check in at a certain place and then dispatched to the work site, generally is engaged in the course of employment while traveling between the check in place and the work site, but not between home and the check in place. The RGIS employees in this case were required to meet at a check-in site, the Holiday Inn South in Baton Rouge, before departing for Alexandria. Applying the holdings in Orgeron and Bergeron, RGIS' auditors were engaged in the course and scope of their employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.