DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McClendon v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, 357 So. 2d 1218.

17 citing documents.

  • Robert Alexander v. Dresser, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
    See McClendon v. State, Through Dep’t. of Corr., (La.App.
  • Watkins v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 117 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • Adams v. Asbestos Corp. 930 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    1st Cir.1984), units denied, and (La.App.
  • Evans v. Canadianoxy Offshore Production Co. 730 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Guidry, ; McClendon v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, (La.App.
  • Miller v. Louisiana Gas Service Co. 601 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    McClendon v. State, through the Department of Corrections, (La.App.
  • Woods v. Monroe Manor Nursing Homes, Inc. 530 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    1st Cir.1984), writs denied, and McClendon v. State, Through Department of Corrections, (La.App.
  • Richards v. LaCour 515 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center 453 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The issue was presented to this court in McClendon v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, (La.
  • Jones v. Philco-Ford Corp. 441 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    However, as we noted in McClendon v. State, through Dept. of Corrections, (La.App.
  • Harris v. Guardian Funds, Inc. 425 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    1632 ; McClendon v. State, through Dept. of Corrections, (La.App.
  • Tigler v. Halliburton Co. 405 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    This doctrine was recently discussed in McClendon v. State, through Dept. of Corrections, (La.App.
  • Kennedy v. Powell 401 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    23:1209 of the workmen's compensation statute is a peremptive period); (La.App.
  • Guidry v. Theriot 377 So. 2d 319 La. 1979
    In more recent pronouncements by this court, these two rights have been characterized as "entirely separate and independent of each other," on original hearing; and as "two types of death actions," Callais, above, on rehearing, and in McClendon v. State, Through Department of Corrections, as "two separate and distinct actions."
  • Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections 375 So. 2d 1319 La. 1979
    171 (La.1929); McClendon v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, (La.App.
  • Guidry v. Theriot 371 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    McClendon v. State, Through Dept. Of Corrections, (La.App.
  • Pounds v. Schori 369 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Compare McClendon v. State, Department of Corrections, (La.App.
  • Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections 366 So. 2d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    McClendon v. State, Through Department of Corrections, (La.App.