Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 824 So. 2d 1137.

55 citing documents.

Tanya Hurel v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company D/B/A National Indemnity Group Insurance Companies and Their Insured, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Michael M. Mulkey, Sr. v. Century Indemnity Company, Petroleum Casualty Company, James Ralph Vannoy, R.H. Bretz, Ralph F. … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
David Defelice, Individually and on Behalf of His Minor Son, Pascal Hondroulis, and Katie Hondroulis Versus Federated National … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
Blow v. OneBeacon America Insurance Co. 193 So. 3d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598, p. 1 (La.9/4/02), .
James Clifford Arrant v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. C/W Marvin Jack Barnett, Jr. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. … La. 2015
Arrant v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. 169 So. 3d 296 La. 2015
Compare Austin v. Abney Mills, 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), .
Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. 168 So. 3d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See also Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 2001-1598 (La.9/4/02), -1142 ; Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., (La.App.
Michel v. State, Division of Administrative Law 167 So. 3d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), -47 .
Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dardar 145 So. 3d 271 La. 2014
As this court explained in Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598, pp. 13-14 (La.9/4/02), , 1146-47: In Walls , we utilized an analytical framework wherein the court first determines whether a statute actually operates retroactively when applied in a particular case, and, if so, the court then turns to the twofold inquiry under La.
Distinguished Oleszkowicz v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 129 So. 3d 1272 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
In Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02); , the supreme court was faced with the issue of whether the defendants-employers were entitled to summary judgment on the issue of tort immunity.
Succession of Ursin v. Board of Levee Commissioners 104 So. 3d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Therefore, the Plaintiffs “had a vested and accrued cause of | iaaction for this statutory interest prior to the enactment of Act 130 of 2005, which removed this interest provision.” The trial court relied upon Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), and Walls v. Am.
Barber v. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau 97 So. 3d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02)
Crescent City Property Redevelopment Ass'n v. Hardy 89 So. 3d 1270 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
See also Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 2001-1598 (La.9/04/02), ; Randall v. Chalmette Medical Center, Inc., 2001-0871 (La.App.
Becker v. Murphy Oil Corp. 70 So. 3d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Further, this inability to pinpoint when injuries were sustained in asbestosis cases renders determining the date on which a plaintiffs cause of action accrued a herculean task.- Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 2001-1598, p. 25 (La.9/4/02), -54 (quoting Cole, 599 So.2d at 1065 )(internal citations omitted)(emphasis added).
Chrystal Corbello v. Kevin Berken La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
9/4/02), Brannan v. Wyeth Labs., Inc.
Marcel v. DELTA SHIPBUILDING CO. 45 So. 3d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598, pp. 25-26 (La.9/4/02), () Moreover, the Court held that a survival action accrues simultaneously with the tort and is transmitted to the heirs of the victim upon his death.
Eddie Bourque, Jr., Et Ux. v. Anco Insulations, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Bourque v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC. 25 So. 3d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), .
Gonzales v. Gonzales 20 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See Austin v. Abney Mills, *561 Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), .
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. 16 So. 3d 1065 La. 2009
9/4/02), , 3 the trial court applied the 1952 version of La.Rev.Stat.
Reggio v. E.T.I. 15 So. 3d 951 La. 2008
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598, n. 7 (La.9/4/02), .
MJ Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 998 So. 2d 16 La. 2008
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), .
Spillman v. Anco Insulations, Inc. 994 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc ., 01-1598 pp. 7-8 (La.9/4/02), .
Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Government 982 So. 2d 795 La. 2008
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598, p. 15 (La.9/4/02), .
Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 975 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
(La.1992); Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.9/4/02), .
Brumfield v. PORT OF NEW ORLEANS 965 So. 2d 402 La. 2007
See Austin v. Abney Mills, 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), .
Brumfield v. Port of New Orleans 965 So. 2d 402 La. 2007
See Austin v. Abney Mills, 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), .
Terrance v. Dow Chemical Co. 971 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
See Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), .
Graves v. Riverwood Intern. Corp. 949 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.09/04/02), .
Distinguished Patriot v. Mississippi Land Holdings 948 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
See Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598, pp. 26-27 (La.9/4/02), -55 ; Cole, 599 So.2d at 1068 .
Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 921 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
2318 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1071 (2002); Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), .
Samuel Alexander v. Thiokol Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
9/4/02), “a plaintiff who contracts an occupational disease has a right to sue in tort when the workers’ compensation act does not provide coverage for that disease.” (Emphasis added.)
Alexander v. Thiokol Corp. 893 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
In reversing that ruling, this court in Alexander, 887 So.2d at 689 , recognized that, under Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), , “a plaintiff who contracts an occupational disease has a right to sue in tort when the workers’ compensation act does not provide coverage for that disease.” (Emphasis added.)
Bailey v. Khoury 891 So. 2d 1268 La. 2005
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.9/4/02), .
Samuel Alexander v. Thiokol Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
9/4/02), rehearing denied (La.
Alexander v. Thiokol Corp. 887 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Austin v. Abney Mills Inc., 01-1598, p. 3 (La.9/4/02), , rehearing denied (La.9/23/02).
Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc. 888 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
We find, based upon the Supreme Court’s more recent decision in Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), , that the Bulot I court misapplied the significant exposure theory set forth by the Supreme Court in Cole, supra, as it applies to maintaining causes of action in long-latency | ¿occupational disease cases.
Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 877 So. 2d 970 La. 2004
However, in September 2002
Rainey v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. 885 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
13:3864-3868; Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), ; Mahayna, Inc. v. Poydras Center Associates, 96-2089 (La.App.
Motorola, Inc. v. Associated Indem. Corp. 878 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
We are aware of the supreme court's holdings in Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), , and Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 01-2767 (La.1/28/03), , relating to the analogous issue of damages for long-latency or insidious disease following exposure to asbestos.
Torrejon v. Mobil Oil Co. 876 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
[12] Dr. Roggli's testimony was quoted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.9/4/02), -1142 ; particularly, the Court stated: Dr. Roggli concluded that Mr. Hogue [plaintiff] suffers from malignant pleural mesothelioma, well-differentiated papillary epithelial variant, caused by exposure to asbestos.
Johnson v. Culotta 874 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 2001-1598, p. 7 (La.9/4/02), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “the party still has to have some cognizable, as opposed to speculative, damages before his cause of action accrues.” Mr. Johnson’s damages are purely speculative, because he has refused to determine what his damages are.
Cheron v. LCS Corrections Services, Inc. 872 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 11 (La.9/4/02), (quoting Walls v. American Optical Corporation, XXXX-XXXX, p. 8 (La.9/8/99), ).
Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 864 So. 2d 117 La. 2004
Interestingly, the manufacturing defendants argue that under the "exposure theory" adopted by this court in Austin v. Abney Mills, 01-1598 (La.9/4/02), , the loss of consortium claim arose at the time of exposure to asbestos, at which time our laws did not allow a claim for loss of consortium.
Eric Glynn v. Diamond State Insurance La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Jefferson v. Cooper/T. Smith Corp. 858 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
See also Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.9/04/02), ; Randall v. Chalmette Medical Center, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.App.
Brooks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 855 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
See also, e.g., Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.9/04/02), ; Randall v. Chalmette Medical Center, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.App.
Kemp v. Armstrong World Industries 855 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
LAW AND ANALYSIS In September 2002, the Louisiana Supreme Court decided Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 2001-1598 (La.9/4/02), .
Greenfield v. Lykes Brothers SS Co. 848 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
In Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 01-1598, pp. 25-26 (La.9/4/02), , the supreme court concluded "that the `significant tortious exposure' theory for determining when a cause of action accrued in a long-latency occupational disease case in which the plaintiff suffers from an illness or disease is when the exposures are `significant and such exposures later result in the manifes
Suskind v. Shervington 846 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
See also Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.9/04/02), ; Randall v. Chalmette Medical Center, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.App.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by