Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 837 So. 2d 1219.

44 citing documents.

Robin Leflore v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Rashaud Brown v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Christopher Vitrano v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
c/w 2022-cc-00539 c/w 2022-cc-00730 La. 2023
1/28/03), , Arco Oil & Gas, Co., Clomon, and Prest
Westlawn Cemeteries, L.L.C. v. The Louisiana Cemetery Board La. 2022
1/28/03), State v. Smith, 418 So.
Distinguished Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
1/28/03), ] and Howard [v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750 (La.
Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Distinguished Adams v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. 273 So. 3d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
1/28/03), ] and Howard [ v. Union Carbide Corp. , 09-2750 (La.
Robert J. Broussard v. Multi-Chem Group, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
1/28/03), for the proposition that “Louisiana courts do not recognize a cause of action for increased risk of future injury when the potential for the occurrence of future injury is speculative or merely ‘possible.’” However, given the facts of this case, we find the appropriate framework for review is better addressed in
Broussard v. Multi-Chem Grp., LLC 252 So. 3d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1/28/03), , for the proposition that "Louisiana courts do not recognize a cause of action for increased risk of future injury when the potential for the occurrence of future injury is speculative or merely `possible.'" However, given the facts of this case, we *535 find the appropriate framework for review is better addressed i
Broussard v. Multi-Chem Grp., LLC 255 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1/28/03), , for the proposition that "Louisiana courts do not recognize a cause of action for increased risk of future injury when the potential for the occurrence of future injury is speculative or merely 'possible.'
Ron Warren, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Derek Hebert v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company La. 2017
1/28/03), quoting Billiot v. B.P.
Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Board 219 So. 3d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 120 So. 3d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The legal standard for the recovery of negligent infliction of emotional distress absent physical injury is that the plaintiff must show an “especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress, arising from the special circumstances, which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious.” Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 01-2767, pp. 22-23 (La.1/28/03), , 1234 citing Moresi v. State Through Dep’t of Wildlife and Fisheries
Marange v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. 93 So. 3d 1253 La. 2012
See, e.g., Richard v. Richard, 11-0229 (La.10/25/11), ; London Towne Condominium Ass’n v. London Towne Co., 06-401 (La.10/17/06), ; Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 01-2767 (La.1/28/03), ; Batson v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 99-0232 (La.11/19/99), ; Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-1174 (La.3/4/98), ; Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, Sevier v. United States F
Williams v. Asbestos 95 So. 3d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 01-2767, pp. 27-28 (La.1/28/03), , quoting Billiot v. B.P.
Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp. 89 So. 3d 307 La. 2012
Fear of Future Injury In its fourth assignment of error, CITGO argues that the lower courts failed to follow this Court’s jurisprudence in awarding damages for fear of future injury, citing this Court’s opinion in Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 01-2767 (La.1/28/03), , for the proposition that fear of future injury must be supported by a showing that the alleged fear is more than speculative or merely possible.
Davenport v. Giles 80 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
563 , 163 L.Ed.2d 462 (2005); Bonnette v. Conoco Inc., 2001-2767 (La.1/28/03), .
Craig Steven Arabie v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
1/28/03), which we find inapplicable in the present case.
Arabie v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 49 So. 3d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
CITGO further cites Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 01-2767 (La.1/28/03), , which we find inapplicable in the present case.
Ricks v. KENTWOOD OIL CO., INC. 38 So. 3d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 2001-2767, p. 24 (La.1/28/03), (citing Moresi v. State, Dep't of Wildlife & Fisheries, ).
Wilson v. Davis 991 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
[2] By contrast, see Bonnette v. Conoco, 2001-2767 (La.1/28/03), , where plaintiffs were awarded a 10% diminution in the value of their property after a real estate appraisal expert provided testimony regarding the value of each plaintiffs property following asbestos abatement.
Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 975 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 2001-2767 (La.1/28/03), .
Grefer v. Alpha Technical 965 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 2001-2767, p. 27 (La.1/28/03), -37 .
McClure v. City of Pineville 944 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 01-2767 (La.1/28/03), .
Howard McClure v. City of Pineville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
KOSTMAYER CONST. v. Sewerage & Water Bd. 943 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 2001-2767 (La.1/28/03), .
Carrie Badon v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Badon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 934 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 01-2767 (La.1/28/03), .
Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp. 935 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 2001-2767 (La.1/28/03), .
Grefer v. Alpha Technical 901 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 2001-2767, p. 27 (La.1/28/03), -37 .
Cain v. Cain 903 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Bonnette v. Conoco Inc., 2001-2767 (La.1/28/03), .
Alden v. Lorning 904 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
The Louisiana Supreme Court held that “in order for plaintiffs to recover emotion distress damages in the absence of a manifest physical injury, they must prove their claim is not spurious by showing a particular likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress arising from spe- *30 dal circumstances.” Bonnette v. Conoco, 01-2767, pp. 24-25 (La.1/28/03), .
Howard v. Union Carbide Corp. 897 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
Bonnette v. Conoco, 02-1767 (La.1/28/03), , citing Moresi v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries
Boyd v. Allied Signal, Inc. 898 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 01-2767, p. 33 (La.1/28/03), .
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.
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. Donald Chauvin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH CONSOLID. v. Chauvin 875 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
See Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 01-2767, p. 11 (La.1/28/03), .
Johnson v. Culotta 874 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 2001-2767, p. 33 (La.1/28/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “[t]he principle that questions of credibility are for the trier of fact to resolve applies to the evaluation of expert testimony....” Because the record contains deposition testimony of two legal experts that is clearly conflicting, there is a material issue of fact reg
Davenport v. A & H Services Co. 848 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
E.g., Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 2001-2767 (La.1/28/03), .
Hazelwood Farm, Inc. v. Liberty Oil and Gas Corp. 844 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 01-C-2767 (La.1/28/03); .