Legal Opinion · Dissent

McNally v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided December 22, 1994No. CA 94 0430Published

1Dissent

| xPITCHER, Judge,

dissenting.

I disagree with the result reached by the majority in this ease. I believe that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the work being performed was a part of Teledyne’s trade, business, or occupation. See, Picard v. Zeit Exploration Co., Inc., 92-2242 (La.App. 1st Cir. 3/11/94); 636 So.2d 922, writ granted and judgment set aside, 94-1555 (La. 9/30/94); 642 So.2d 862; Deal v. International Paper Company, 632 So.2d 870 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1994), writ granted and judgment reversed, 94-0677 (La. 4/29/94); 637 So.2d 453; Hanks v. Shell Oil *271Co., 93-737…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moore v. Crystal Oil Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1993
  2. Hanks v. Shell Oil Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1994
  3. Picard v. Zeit Exploration Co., Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1994
  4. Deal v. International Paper Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API