DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

150 citing documents.

  • Sylvester Harris v. Olivier's Contractors La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Harris v. Olivier's Contractors 155 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amera da Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), .
  • JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Boohaker 168 So. 3d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267 (La.10/25/11), .
  • Bass Custom Signs, LLC v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Bass Custom Signs, LLC v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government 149 So. 3d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272,10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289, pp. 6-7 (La.10/25/11), -56 .
  • State v. Watson 151 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    art. 927(A)(6); Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267 (La.10/25/11), .
  • 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), .
  • Borgnemouth Realty Co. v. Parish of St. Bernard 141 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • Carlos Boone, Et Ux. v. Conoco Phillips Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Boone v. Conoco Phillips Co. 139 So. 3d 1047 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, p. 8 (La.10/25/11), -57 .
  • Susan Arnaud, Et Ux. v. Ronald Dies La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Arnaud v. Dies 153 So. 3d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 2272, 2275, 2279, 2289, pp. 6-7 (La.10/25/11), -56 .
  • Ronnie Ceasar v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    10/25/11), -56 (footnotes omitted), stating: By filing a peremptory exception of no right of action, a defendant challenges whether a plaintiff has such a real and actual interest in the action.
  • Nellie Pierce v. Atlantic Richfield Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Pierce v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 161 So. 3d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    The trial court relied on the subsequent purchaser doctrine as set forth in the supreme court’s decision in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), .
  • John C. Duck v. Hunt Oil Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    10/25/11), to bar his claims; and 2) in finding that the oil and gas leases affecting the property did not constitute a stipulation pour autrui in his favor.
  • Duck v. Hunt Oil Co. 134 So. 3d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Duck now appeals, alleging that the trial court erred: 1) in applying the subsequent purchaser theory described in Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), , to bar his claims; and 2) in finding that the oil and gas leases affecting the property did not constitute a stipulation pour autrui in his favor.
  • Christopher Ayro v. Willstaff, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Ayro v. Willstaff, Inc. 153 So. 3d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 3/16/11) , , writ denied 11-0760 (La.10/25/11), .
  • Marcus Miller v. Harold J. Thibeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    DISCUSSION Exception of No Right of Action – Paternity The supreme court explained the appellate review of a ruling on an exception of no right of action in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10- 2275, 10-2279, 20-2289, pp. 6-7 (La.10/25/11), -56: “The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, p. 1
  • Miller v. Thibeaux 153 So. 3d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    DISCUSSION Exception of No Right of Action — Pa ternity The supreme court explained the appellate review of a ruling on an exception of no right of action in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 202289, pp. 6-7 (La.10/25/11), , 255-56: “The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008-02
  • Kenneth James Mouton v. George Hebert, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • Toby J. Broussard v. Brown's Furniture of Lafayette, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • Broussard v. Brown's Furniture of Lafayette, Inc. 128 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    3 Cir. 3/16/11) , , writ granted, 11-760 (La.6/3/11), , writ denied as improvidently granted, 11-760 (La.10/25/11), .
  • Ciolino v. First Guaranty Bank 133 So. 3d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    See Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267 (La.10/25/11), ; (on rehearing).
  • Gauthier v. Harmony Construction, LLC 128 So. 3d 314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    art. 2769 (“If an undertaker fails to do the work he has contracted to do, or if he does not execute it in the manner and at the time he has agreed to do it, he shall be liable in damages for the losses that may ensue from his non-compliance with his contract.”); Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267 (La.10/25/11), , 282, reh’g denied (Jan.
  • Wagoner v. Chevron USA, Inc. 121 So. 3d 727 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    The “subsequent purchaser rule” was explained by the supreme court in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 2010-2267 (La.10/25/11), : 4 The subsequent purchaser rule is a jurisprudential rule which holds that an owner of property 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 t
  • Humble v. Pafford EMS 116 So. 3d 878 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 2010-2267 (La.10/25/11), ; Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215 (La.12/2/08), .
  • Raymond Charles, Sr. v. Towing and Recovery Professionals of Louisiana Trust La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    10/25/11), -56: “The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008– 0215, p. 17 (La.12/2/08)
  • Charles v. Towing & Recovery Professionals of Louisiana, Inc. 156 So. 3d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    The supreme court explained the appellate review of a ruling on an exception of no right of action in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 20-2289, pp. 6-7 (La.10/25/11), , 255-56: “The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, p. 17 (La.12/2/08), .
  • Lomark, Inc. v. Lavignebaker Petroleum, L.L.C. 110 So. 3d 1107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Both parties cite Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267 (La.10/25/11), , in support of their positions.
  • Opelousas Trust Authority v. Cleco Corp. 105 So. 3d 26 La. 2012
    Cleco cites a recent case in which this Court held, “[a] person may | mderive a benefit from a contract to which he is not a party without being a third party beneficiary.” Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, p. 51 (La.10/25/11); .
  • Thibco Investments, LLC v. Robert Thibodeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    10/25/11), -56 (footnotes omitted), stating: By filing a peremptory exception of no right of action, a defendant challenges whether a plaintiff has such a real and actual interest in the action.
  • State of La., Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries v. Gulfport Energy Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    10/25/11), -56 (additional citations omitted): “The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, p. 17 (La.12/2/08)
  • George Raymond Williams, M.D. v. Sif Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Williams v. SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. 103 So. 3d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Our review must “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.” Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, p. 6 (La.10/25/11), .
  • Distinguished 2400 Canal, LLC v. Board of Supervisors 105 So. 3d 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, pp. 16-17 (La.10/25/11), ; Richard v. Hall, 03-1488, pp. 17-18 (La.4/23/04), .
  • Thibco Investments, LLC v. Thibodeaux 102 So. 3d 1043 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    |sThe supreme court addressed the function and appellate review of exceptions of no right of action in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289, pp. 6-7 (La.10/25/11), -56 (footnotes omitted), stating: By filing a peremptory exception of no right of action, a defendant challenges whether a plaintiff has such a real and actual interest in the action.
  • State, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries v. Gulfport Energy Corp. 125 So. 3d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    The supreme court explained the appellate review of a ruling on this exception in Eagle Pipe v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, pp. 6-7 (La.10/25/11), -56 (additional citations omitted): “The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, p. 17 (La.12/2/08), .
  • Darnell Carter v. Steak House Steaks, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    10/25/11), -56, as follows: “The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, p. 17 (La.12/2/08)
  • Carter v. Steak House Steaks, Inc. 107 So. 3d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Our supreme court explained the peremptory exception of no right of action in Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267,10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289, pp. 6-7 (La.10/25/11), -56 , as follows: “The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause *99 of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, p. 17 (La.12/2/08), .
  • Niemann v. Crosby Development Co. 92 So. 3d 1039 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    4 RECENT JURISPRUDENCE In a recent decision, Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 2010-2267 (La.10/25/11), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser of land, which had allegedly been contaminated with radioactive material more than two decades prior to the sale, had no right of action against a third party for non-apparent property damages inflicted on the property before the sale, in the absence of an
  • Beslin v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. 87 So. 3d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), .
  • Global Marketing Solutions, LLC v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc. 84 So. 3d 538 La. 2012
    The case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of its rulings in light of Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), .
  • Global Marketing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc. 84 So. 3d 538 La. 2012
    The case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of its rulings in light of Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), .
  • Global Marketing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc. 84 So. 3d 538 La. 2012
    The case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of its rulings in light of Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), .
  • Global Marketing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc. 84 So. 3d 539 La. 2012
    The case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of its rulings in light of Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), .
  • Global Marketing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc. 84 So. 3d 539 La. 2012
    The case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of its rulings in light of Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), .
  • Global Marketing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc. 84 So. 3d 540 La. 2012
    The case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of its rulings in light of Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), .
  • MK International, Inc. v. Central Oil & Supply Corp. 87 So. 3d 165 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    art. 1758; Eagle Pipe and Supply Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), .