DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 45 So. 3d 991.

131 citing documents.

  • Southern Acadiana Services, LLC v. Phayarath 139 So. 3d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Raborn v. Albea 144 So. 3d 1066 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, p. 7 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Guillot v. Doughty 142 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Haygood v. Dies 127 So. 3d 1008 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Hogg v. Chevron USA Inc., 2009-2632 (La.7/6/10), ; Jones v. Estate of Santiago, 2003-1424 (La.4/14/04), .
  • Hardin Compounding Pharmacy, LLC v. Progressive Bank 125 So. 3d 493 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, 2009-2632 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Crosby v. Sahuque Realty Co. 122 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    e trial court noted again its rejection of plaintiffs’ continuing tort argument and quoted the Louisiana Supreme Court case, Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., as follows: “the breach of a duty to right an initial wrong simply cannot be a continuous wrong that suspends the running of prescription, as that is the purpose of every lawsuit and the obligation of every tortfeasor.” 09-2632, p. 23 (La.7/6/10), .
  • McKenzie v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 122 So. 3d 42 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 2009-2632 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Pociask v. Moseley 122 So. 3d 533 La. 2013
    Wells v. Zadeck, 11-1232, p. 7 (La.3/30/12), , 1149; Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, p. 6 (La.7/6/10), .
  • 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.
  • Dortch v. Rollins 113 So. 3d 443 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    art. 966(B)(2); Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 2009-2632 (La.7/6/10), .
  • State v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. 110 So. 3d 1038 La. 2013
    This court has explained, a “genuine issue” is a “triable issue,” or “one as to Rwhich reasonable persons could disagree.” Hogg v. Chevron, 2009-2632, p. 6 (La.7/6/10); ; Champagne v. Ward, 2003-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05); .
  • In re Medical Review Proceedings of DeBram 102 So. 3d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, p. 16 (La.7/6/10) .
  • Pitre v. Buddy's Seafood 102 So. 3d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, p. 7 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Williams v. Asbestos 95 So. 3d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “As this court has explained, a ‘genuine issue’ is a ‘triable issue,’ or one as to which reasonable persons could disagree.” Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, p. 6 (La.7/6/10), , quoting Champagne v. Ward, OS-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), .
  • 1026 Conti Condominiums, LLC v. 1025 Bienville, LLC 84 So. 3d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 2009-2632, p. 6 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Kinder Gas, Inc. v. Gerald B. Reynolds La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    7/6/10), ] to this matter, the [Defendants/Plaintiffs in Reconvention] were required to file their tort action within one year of said date.
  • Kinder Gas, Inc. v. Reynolds 84 So. 3d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Applying the holdings of Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., [09-2368 (La.10/19/10), ,] and Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., [09-2632 (La.7/6/10), ,] to this matter, the [Defendants/Plaintiffs in Reconvention] were required to file their tort action within one year of said date.
  • Interstate Battery Systems of America, Inc. v. Charles Bryant Kountz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    7/6/10), the supreme court reviewed the history of the continuing-tort doctrine, explaining that cases addressing the doctrine: [L]ooked to the alleged injury-producing conduct of the tortfeasors to determine whether that conduct was perpetuated through overt, persistent, and ongoing acts.
  • Interstate Battery Systems of America, Inc. v. Kountz 78 So. 3d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    In Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, 09-2635, p. 21 (La.7/6/10), , the supreme court reviewed the history of the continuing-tort doctrine, explaining that cases addressing the doctrine: [L]ooked to the alleged injury-producing conduct of the tortfeasors to determine whether that conduct was perpetuated through overt, persistent, and ongoing acts.
  • Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation 79 So. 3d 246 La. 2011
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 2009-2632, p. 16 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Oracle Oil, LLC v. EPI Consultants 77 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 2009-2632, p. 7 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Safeguard Storage Properties, L.L.C. v. Donahue Favret Contractors, Inc. 60 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    “As this court has explained, a ‘genuine issue’ is a ‘triable issue,’ or one as to which reasonable persons could disagree.” Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, p. 6 (La.7/6/10), , quoting Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), .
  • 2800 Associates, L.L.C. v. Eagle Equity Ltd. Partnership 3 64 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
    Additionally, Stein Mart and Eagle assert the trash compactor and freight containers do not constitute “continuing trespasses” that interrupt prescription and cite Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632 (La.7/6/10); , 1001 as their authority.
  • W.T.A. v. M.Y. 58 So. 3d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, 09-2635 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Noble v. ESTATE OF MELIUS 62 So. 3d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    However, when the face of the petition reveals that the plaintiffs claim has prescribed, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show why the claim has not prescribed.” Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 2009-2682, p. 7 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Williams v. Ruben Residential Properties, LLC 58 So. 3d 534 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, 2009-2632 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Lee v. City of Shreveport 58 So. 3d 601 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    “The court must look to the operating cause of the injury sued upon and determine whether it is a continuous one giving rise to successive damages, or whether it is discontinuous and terminates, even though the damage persists and may progressively worsen.” Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 2009-2632 (La.07/06/10), .
  • Bertha Gruver v. the Kroger Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Gruver v. Kroger Co. 54 So. 3d 1249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Anderson v. Bossier Parish Police Jury 56 So. 3d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 2009-2632 (La.7/6/10), .
  • Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 48 So. 3d 234 La. 2010
    We recently discussed the constructive knowledge requirement in a soil and groundwater contamination case in Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632 c/w 09-2635 (La.7/6/10), .