DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So. 3d 234.

105 citing documents.

  • Harris v. Breaud 243 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    10/19/10), , 253 ; Crump v. Sabine River Authority, 98-2326 (La.
  • Moore v. Chevron USA 222 So. 3d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    10/19/10), (quoting Young v. International Paper Co., 179 La.
  • Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Board 219 So. 3d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    10/19/10), , The four situations wherein contra non valentem may apply are: (1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their offi *464 cers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiffs action; (2) where there was some condition coupled with the contract or connected with the proceedings whic
  • Andersen v. Succession of Bergeron 217 So. 3d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Meagan Lemoine v. Lionel Augustine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
  • Alexander v. La. State Board of Private Investigator Examiners 211 So. 3d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Steven Trahan v. Bp America Production Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    10/19/10), n.1, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained: “Legacy litigation” refers to hundreds of cases filed by landowners seeking damages from oil and gas exploration companies for alleged environmental damage in the wake of this Court’s decision in Corbello v. Iowa Production, 02-0826
  • Trahan v. BP America Production Co. 209 So. 3d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Marin, , came before the supreme court after a trial on the merits, but it is nonetheless instructive regarding when the prescriptive period starts to run and when the discovery rule of contra non valentum should apply in a legacy case.
  • Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Brammer Engineering, Inc. 209 So. 3d 995 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • Lapuyade v. Rawbar, Inc. 190 So. 3d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    “[T]he ultimate -issue in determining whether- a plaintiff had constructive knowledge sufficient to commence a prescriptive period is the reasonableness of the plaintiffs action or inaction in light of his education, intelligence, and the nature of the defendant’s conduct.” Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368 (La.10/19/10); .
  • Felix v. Safeway Insurance Co. 183 So. 3d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2015
    Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368, 09-2371, p. 13 (La.10/19/10), .
  • M.R. Pittman Group, L.L.C. v. Plaquemines Parish Government 182 So. 3d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Nevertheless, it has also cautioned that the doctrine only applies in “exceptional circumstances.” Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368, 09-2371, p. 13 (La.10/19/10), .
  • M.R. Pittman Group, L.L.C. v. Plaquemines Parish Government 182 So. 3d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    09-2368, 09-2371 (La.10/19/10), .
  • Meiko Prevo v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections Division of Probation and … La. 2015
    10/19/10), we held there are three elements which must be established in order for the third category of contra non valentem to apply: (1) the defendant engages in conduct which rises to the level of concealment, misrepresentation, fraud or ill practice; (2) the defendant’s actions effectually prevented the plaintiff f
  • Prevo v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections Division of Probation & Parole 187 So. 3d 395 La. 2015
    In Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368, p. 24 (La.10/19/10), , we held there are three elements which must be established in order for the third category of contra non valentem to apply: *399 (1) the defendant engages in conduct which rises to the level of concealment, misrepresentation, fraud or ill practice; (2) the defendant’s actions effectually prevented the plaintiff
  • Denham Homes, LLC v. Teche Federal Bank 182 So. 3d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368 (La.10/19/10), -45 ; Stobart v. State, Dept., of Transp.
  • Gloria M. Ned v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    10/19/10), and Bernard v. City of Marksville, 4 14-730 (La.App.
  • Ned v. Union Pacific Corp. 176 So. 3d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Given, the subsequent ' rulings in Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, 09-2635 (La.7/6/10), ; Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368, 09-2371 (La.10/19/10), ; and Bernard v. City of Marksville, 14—730 (La.App.
  • Vincent Charles Bundrick v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • Bundrick v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. 159 So. 3d 1137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    had a right to recover damages from Exxon arising in breach of contract and tort because the right to recover damages was a ‘property right,’ and not a personal right.” Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368, 09-2371, p. 10 (La.10/19/10), .
  • Magee v. Worley 163 So. 3d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2009-2368 (La.10/19/10), , 177 Oil & Gas Rep.
  • Prevo v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections Division of Probation & Parole 163 So. 3d 16 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368 (La.10/19/10), ; Albe v. City of New Orleans, 14-0186 (La.App.
  • Walton v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 162 So. 3d 490 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368 (La.10/19/10), ; State v. Louisiana Land, supra.
  • Blevins v. Long Trusts 162 So. 3d 500 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    In other words, prescription begins to run upon “the acquisition of sufficient information which, if pursued, will lead to the true condition of things.” Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2009-2368 (La.10/19/10), .
  • Illes v. State ex rel. Division of Administration 168 So. 3d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2009-2368, p. 11 (La.10/19/10), -245 ; Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp.
  • Steve H. Crooks, Et Ux. v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    10/19/10), the supreme court held that a lessor of his mineral interests need not wait until 3 the end of a lease to sue a mineral lessee for soil and groundwater damage to his property, because the legal obligations imposed on a lessee did not contain a provision that the lessor
  • Crooks v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. 155 So. 3d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    In Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368, 09-2371 (La.10/19/10), , the supreme court held that a lessor of his mineral interests need not wait until |4the end of a lease to sue a mineral lessee for soil and groundwater damage to his property, because the legal obligations imposed on a lessee did not contain a provision that the lessor had to wait until termination of the lease, asi
  • Global Marketing Solutions, LLC v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc. 153 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    (Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2009-2368 (La.10/19/10), , as was a similar case out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal titled Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 2010-2267 (La.10/25/11), .
  • Albe v. City of New Orleans 150 So. 3d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • In re Medical Review Panel ex rel. Rachal 144 So. 3d 1199 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2009-23681 in(La.l0/19/10), .
  • Ark-La-Tex Safety Showers, LLC v. Jorio 132 So. 3d 986 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    10/19/10), ; RJAM, Inc. v. Miletello, 45,176 (La.App.2d Cir.4/14/10), , writ denied, 2010-1127 (La.9/17/10), .
  • Renee Christine Dietz v. Superior Oil Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    10/19/10), the supreme court held that a lessor’s suit for soil and groundwater contamination damages resulting from oil and gas operations may be brought prior to the end of a mineral lease.
  • Claborne v. Housing Authority of New Orleans 116 So. 3d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Citing the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decisions in Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 2009-2632, 2009-2635 (La.7/06/10); and Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2009-2368, 2009-2371 (La.10/19/10), , |4the trial court concluded the doctrines of contra non va-lentem and continuing tort did not apply to the plaintiffs’ claims.
  • Clovelly Oil Co. v. Midstates Petroleum Co. 112 So. 3d 187 La. 2013
  • Dupre v. Surbo Tubular Services, Inc. 113 So. 3d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2009-2368 (La.10/19/10), .
  • State v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. 110 So. 3d 1038 La. 2013
    Farms, supra and Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2009-2368 (La.10/19/10); .
  • Walton v. Burns 151 So. 3d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In this case, as in the supreme court’s important ruling in Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368, 09-2371 (La.10/19/10), , the alleged damage is the existing contamination of the soil and groundwater which impedes or prevents plaintiffs’ present use of the land.
  • Clavier v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc. 112 So. 3d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2009-2368 (La.10/19/10), .
  • Marcus Broussard, Jr. v. Martin Operating Partnership La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    10/19/10), the supreme court disagreed with Exxon‟s position, as mirrored by M-I, that any restoration obligation raised by a lease does not become effective until the lease terminates.
  • Broussard v. Martin Operating Partnership 103 So. 3d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368, 09-2371 (La.10/19/10), , the supreme court disagreed with Exxon’s position, as mirrored by M-I, that any restoration obligation raised by a lease does not become effective until the lease terminates.
  • Naquin v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc. 102 So. 3d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    art. 2687 and Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2868 (La.10/19/10), , 239 and 255-56; see also Onstott v. Certified Capital Corp., 05-2548 (La.App.
  • In re Medical Review Proceedings of DeBram 102 So. 3d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “A continuing tort is occasioned by unlawful acts, Innot the continuation of the ill effects of an original, wrongful act.” Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2868, p. 26 (La.10/19/10), ; Crump v. Sabine River Authority, 98-2326, p. 9 (La.6/29/99), .
  • Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 102 So. 3d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368, p. 11 (La.10/19/10), .
  • Wells v. Zadeck 89 So. 3d 1145 La. 2012
    Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368, p. 12 (La.10/19/10), ; La.
  • Dan S. Collins, Cpl & Associates,inc. v. Frank A. Godchaux, III, Etc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    10/19/10), a landman engaged in negotiations on his clients’ behalf for site clean-up.
  • Collins v. Godchaux 86 So. 3d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368, 09-2371 (La.10/19/10), , a landman engaged in negotiations on his clients’ behalf for site clean-up.
  • Kinder Gas, Inc. v. Gerald B. Reynolds La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    10/19/10), ] decision holds that the Civil Code does not bar claims for damages while a lease is ongoing.
  • State of Louisiana v. Louisiana Land & Exploration La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    10/19/10), for the proposition that the School Board’s recovery of tort damages for restoration is limited to the regulatory standard in Act 312, is misplaced.
  • Kinder Gas, Inc. v. Reynolds 84 So. 3d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    The district court erred in granting the [GJas [CJompany [DJefendants’ exception[s] of prematurity as to the Reynolds [FJamily’s contract claims on finding that the surface lease was still in *699 effect[,] and Kinder [Gas] still had ongoing operations at the facility,1 ] when the Supreme Court’s Marin [v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368 (La.10/19/10), ,] decision holds that the Civil Code does not bar claims for damages while a lease is ongoing.
  • State v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. 85 So. 3d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Likewise, we find Unocal’s reliance on Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-2368 (La.10/19/10), , for the proposition that the School Board’s recovery of tort damages for restoration is limited to the regulatory standard in Act 312, is misplaced.