Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tyson v. THOMPSON HOME HEALTH, 79 So. 3d 246.

150 citing documents.

Grace Ranch, LLC v. Bp America Production Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Grace Ranch, LLC v. BP Am. Prod. Co. 252 So. 3d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Frigon v. Universal Pictures, Inc. 255 So. 3d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Kenneth Clark v. Walgreens Drugstore La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
10/25/11), “[t]he compromise agreement, and not the order of approval, is the document that governs the rights of the parties thereto.” The only purpose that the order of approval serves, “is to prevent the ill-advised or hasty resolution of the employee’s claim that could inure to [his] serious detriment.” Jd.
Clark v. Sedgwick CMS 247 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/25/11), , "[t]he compromise agreement, and not the order of approval, is the document that governs the rights of the parties thereto."
Shephard v. AIX Energy, Inc. 249 So. 3d 194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
10/25/11), , 174 Oil & Gas Rep.
Terry Leone v. Don Ware La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Leone v. Ware 246 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Astra Zeneca AB 249 So. 3d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/25/11), , 252-53 & 255.
In re Dean 247 So. 3d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Mollere v. Mollere 243 So. 3d 1271 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
10/25/11), , 256, rehearing denied , (La.
Ehsani-Landry v. Jefferson Parish 240 So. 3d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Fie, LLC v. New Jax Condo Ass'n, Inc. 241 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/25/11), , 258 ; Giroir v. Dumesnil , 248 La.
Black River Crawfish Farms, LLC v. Jack A. King, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
10/25/11), 2 Because the transfer to Black River in 2003 did not contain an assignment of 1 This appeal only involves Black River’s claims against the King Trustees.
Black River Crawfish Farms, LLC v. King 246 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Catahoula Lake Investments, LLC v. Hunt Oil Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Catahoula Lake Invs., LLC v. Hunt Oil Co. 237 So. 3d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Defendants cite three Louisiana Supreme Court cases in support of the trial court's reasoning on this point: Eagle Pipe , ; Bradford v. Richard , 46 La.Ann.
Helen Moore v. MacQuarie Infrastructure Real Assets La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
James Edward Knight v. State of La, Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure Real Assets 258 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Nikola P. Vekic v. Dragutin Popich, Mary A. Popich & Helen Harris Popich La. 2017
10/25/11), -57, the Court of Appeal stated that “Louisiana courts have consistently held that a purchaser is precluded from claiming damages to property that occurs prior to the purchaser’s acquisition of the property.” Vekic, 215 So.3d at 490.
Laboratory Corporation of America v. Progressive Acute Care Dauterive, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Laboratory Corp. of America v. Progressive Acute Care Dauterive, LLC 228 So. 3d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Glassell Producing Co. v. Naquin 224 So. 3d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Old Republic Life Insurance Co. v. TransWood Inc. 222 So. 3d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Roubion Shoring Co. v. Crescent Shoring, L.L.C. 222 So. 3d 921 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2017
Vekic v. Popich 215 So. 3d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/25/11), ; Boone v. Conoco Phillips Co., 13-1196 (La.App.
Robert Wayne Hackett, Et Ux. v. Murphy Exploration & Production Co. USA La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
10/25/11), the rights asserted during the existence of the agreement between the Hacketts and Grand Anse are personal to Grand Anse and cannot be conveyed to the Hacketts except by assignment.
Hackett v. Murphy Exploration & Production Co. USA 216 So. 3d 63 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
10/25/11), , the rights asserted during the existence of the agreement between the Hacketts and' Grand Anse are personal to Grand Anse and cannot be conveyed to the Hacketts except by assignment.
St. Cyr v. St. Cyr 215 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Petroquest Energy, LLC v. Sam L. Banks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
PetroQuest Energy, LLC v. Banks 208 So. 3d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Succession of Sylvester 215 So. 3d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Kennedy v. Saheid 209 So. 3d 985 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
10/25/11), , 174 Oil & Gas Rep.
Edwin K. Hunter, Apc v. Thomas Glynn Blazier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Hunter v. Blazier 203 So. 3d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Xxi Oil & Gas, LLC v. Hilcorp Energy Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
(quoting Eagle Pipe )(second alteration in original).
Huntsman International LLC v. Praxair, Inc. 201 So. 3d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Town of Arcadia v. Arcadia Chamber of Commerce 195 So. 3d 23 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
463, 464; Eagle Pipe & Supply Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 2010-2267 (La.10/25/11), , 174 Oil & Gas Rep.
Patriot Contstruction & Equipment,llc v. Rage Logistics, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267 (La.10/25/11)
Patriot Construction & Equipment, LLC v. Rage Logistics, LLC 215 So. 3d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267 (La.10/25/11), .
Theodule P. Noel, Jr. v. Theodule Pierre Noel, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Noel v. Noel 165 So. 3d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267 (La.10/25/11), .
Distinguished Nellie Pierce v. Atlantic Richfield Company 166 So. 3d 996 La. 2015
10/25/11), addressed subsequent purchaser rights following a sale, which are distinguishable from the rights acquired through a succession transfer, we find Eagle Pipe is not dispositive of the exceptions of no right of action filed by the defendants in this case.
Succession of George Russell Chambers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Vincent Charles Bundrick v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
10/25/11), a case dealing with surface leases and relied on by the trial court in the case before us. The 4 supreme court described the subsequent purchaser rule as: [A] jurisprudential rule which holds that an owner of property has no right or actual interest in recoveri
Bundrick v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. 159 So. 3d 1137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The supreme court performed an extensive analysis of the subsequent purchaser rule in Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), , a case dealing with surface leases and relied on by the trial court in the case before us. The | (¡supreme court described the subsequent purchaser rule as: *1141 [A] jurisprudential rule which holds that an owner of property has no right or actual interest in recovering from a third party for damage
Succession of Chambers 160 So. 3d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
rt reviews a ruling on an exception of no right of action, it “should focus on whether the particular plaintiff has a right to bring the suit and is a member of the class of persons that has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation, assuming the petition states a valid cause of action for some person.” Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, p. 7 (La.10/25/11), .
Walton v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 162 So. 3d 490 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
The dismissal of the Landowners’ claims for Pre-Pur-chase Damages against all Defendants was based upon the so-called subsequent purchase doctrine as addressed in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267 (La.10/25/11), .
Marcus Miller v. Harold Thibeaux,lafayette Parish School Board and American Alternative Insurance Corporation 159 So. 3d 426 La. 2015
Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267 (La.10/25/11), .