Cited by

10/25/11), (citations omitted).

10/25/11), “decision was not simply the remedies available to an acquirer of allegedly contaminated property, but rather the longstanding distinction between real and personal rights that has existed under Louisiana property and obligations law for more than 160 years.” The appellees further argue th

10/25/11), the Supreme Court acknowledged that when property is damaged through the fault of another, the owner of the property obtains a personal right to demand the tortfeasor repair the damage.

10/25/11), 3) CV Land and its predecessor in title, Leslie Ardoin, Inc., renounced and/or waived any claims against Miller’s Lake, Inc. by its acknowledgement and agreement to a “working servitude” for the levee system in favor of Miller’s Lake; and 4) acquisitive prescription.

10/ 25/ 11), to support his argument that claims brought pursuant to La.

10/ 25/ 11), recognized or affirmed that claims by a " person in interest" under La.

10/25/11), -257, assert that under the subsequent purchaser doctrine, Litel “has no right or actual interest in recovering from a third party for damage which was inflicted on the property before his purchase, in the absence of an assignment or subrogation of the rights belonging to the owner of the property when the dama

10/25/11), Giroir v. Dumesnil, 248 La.

10/25/11), does not apply to a subsequent purchaser where, “there is obviously continuing, persistent, and ongoing tortious acts creating a continuing tort,” as in the present case.

10/25/11), , 278, n.75 (emphasis added).

Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267 (La.10/25/11)

10/25/11), the trial court concluded that a subsequent purchaser can assert a right of action when, as “in the case sub judice, there is obviously continuing, persistent, and ongoing tortious acts creating a continuing tort.” Thus, the trial court denied the State’s exception of no right of action.