Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Moak v. Link-Belt Company, 229 So. 2d 395.

25 citing documents.

National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Harrington 854 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
3 Cir.), writs denied, , 916 (La.1975); (La.App.
Hennegan v. Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. 837 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Landry ex rel. Landry v. Union Pacific Railroad 631 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. Continental Grain Co. 542 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Considering the foregoing principles we initially reject plaintiff’s (La.App.
Andersen v. Lummus Construction Co. 411 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Brown v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 407 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
3rd Cir. 1972); (La.App.
Wilson v. Werner Co., Inc. 393 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Waller v. Farmland Industries, Inc. 392 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
App. 1st Cir. 1979); (La.App.
Turberville v. Georgia Pac. Chemical Co. 385 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Rapattoni v. Commercial Union Assur. Co. 378 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 330 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
3rd Cir.1972); (La.App.
Guillory v. Nicklos Oil & Gas Co. 315 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
4th Cir. 1974); (La.App.
Hudson v. Aetna Casualty Insurance Company 299 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
the operator of a sugar refinery was sued in tort by several employees of contractors and subcontractors who had contracted to design, fabricate and install certain mechanical systems.
Sauce v. Bussell 298 So. 2d 832 La. 1974
The *837 Court is not aware that the decision in Moak v. Link-Belt Company [La.App.], , stands for the proposition that in all instances where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is to be invoked all parties who might even remotely be connected with the matter be joined in one action.
LeJeune v. Highlands Insurance Company 287 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Vidrine v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Co. 268 So. 2d 233 La. 1972
Duplechin v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company 265 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
1959)] and Moak v. Link-Belt [Co.], supra, [ (La.App.
Kistner v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. 258 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Maxey v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 255 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Frey v. Brown 254 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
He relies upon Ball v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, (La.App.
Sharrett v. Fontcuberta 246 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Moak v. Link-Belt Company 242 So. 2d 515 La. 1970
Moak v. Link-Belt Co. 232 So. 2d 76 La. 1970
Moak v. Link-Belt Co. 232 So. 2d 76 La. 1970
Moak v. Link-Belt Co. 232 So. 2d 75 La. 1970