Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Williams v. State, 350 So. 2d 131.

64 citing documents.

Robert J. Caluda, Aplc and New Orleans Private Patrol Service, Inc. v. the City of New Orleans, Linebarger … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
Later, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that “since the class action is brought on behalf of all members of the class, its filing interrupts prescription as to the claims of all members of the class, whether they are noticed before or after the prescriptive delay has terminated.”
Cajuns for Clean Water, LLC v. Cecelia Water Corporation D/B/A Cecilia Water Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
As explained by Justice Tate in Williams v. State, [ (1977)], when individual claims are small, disallowing a class action poses a serious threat to the loss of individual substantive rights....
Cajuns for Clean Water, LLC v. Cecelia Water Corp. 257 So. 3d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
As explained by Justice Tate in Williams v. State, [ (1977) ], when individual claims are small, disallowing a class action poses a serious threat to the loss of individual substantive rights....
Ansardi v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. 111 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
124Later, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that “since the class action is brought on behalf of all members of the class, its filing interrupts prescription as to the claims of all members of the class, whether they are noticed before or after the prescriptive delay has terminated.”
Watters v. Department of Social Services 102 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“[C]lass action is superior to other procedural methods available for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, since the class action is otherwise appropriate because of the numerous members of the class, and because of the adequate representation assured by the plaintiffs instituting this class action.” -35 (La.1977).
Pollard v. Alpha Technical 102 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See, (stating Louisiana class action statute was adapted largely from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23).” Banks v. New York Life Ins.
Taranto v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. 62 So. 3d 721 La. 2011
Additionally, this Court has held that “since the class action is brought on behalf of all members of the class, its filing interrupts prescription as to the claims of all members of the class, whether they are noticed before or after the prescriptive delay has terminated.”
Eastin v. Entergy Corp. 42 So. 3d 1163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 3463; ( [S]ince the class action is brought on behalf of all members of the class, its filing interrupts prescription as to the claims of all members of the class, whether they are noticed before or after the prescriptive delay has terminated.).
Pollard v. Alpha Technical 31 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Taranto v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. 28 So. 3d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
For example, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “since the class action is brought on behalf of all members of the class, its filing interrupts prescription as to the claims of all members of the class, whether they are noticed before or after the prescriptive delay has terminated.” , (La.1977).
Brooks v. Union Pacific Railroad 13 So. 3d 546 La. 2009
Thomas v. Mobil Oil Corp. 14 So. 3d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
However, when each individual’s claim is small, disallowing class certification “pose[s] a serious threat to the loss of individual substantive rights if the class action is not allowed.”
Pitts v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. 4 So. 3d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Additionally, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that “since the class action is brought on behalf of all members of the class, its filing interrupts prescrip- *110 ti on as to the claims of all members of the class, whether they are noticed before or after the prescriptive delay has terminated.”
Bourgeois v. AP Green Industries, Inc. 939 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
See Ford v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc., 96-2913 (La.9/9/97), -548 ; Banks v. New York Life Insurance Co., 98-0551 (La.7/2/99), ; McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services of Louisiana, Inc.
Davis v. Jazz Casino Co., LLC 864 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
art. 597; -38 (La.1977).
Davis v. American Home Products Corp. 844 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Clark v. Trus Joist MacMillian 836 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
As explained by Justice Tate in Williams v. State, [ (1977)], when individual claims are small, disallowing a class action poses a serious threat to the loss of individual substantive rights....
Bordelon v. City of Alexandria 822 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
("[S]ince the class action is brought on behalf of all members of the class, its filing interrupts prescription as to the claims of all members of the class, whether they are noticed before or after the prescriptive delay has terminated.").
Munsey v. Cox Communications of New Orleans, Inc. 814 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp. 811 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
art. 597; -38 (La.1977); Andry , 97-0793 at pp. 2-3, 710 So.2d at 1128-29 .
Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 790 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Duhe v. Texaco, Inc. 779 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Although McCastle, , was a mass tort and the present case is based on contract, the same basic class action rules are applicable to our case, (on rehearing 1979)
Billieson v. City of New Orleans 729 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Banks v. New York Life Ins. Co. 722 So. 2d 990 La. 1998
See, (stating Louisiana class action statute was adapted largely from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23).
Johnson v. EI Dupont deNemours & Co., Inc. 721 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
(on rehearing); Stevens v. Board of Trustees, 309 So.2d *44 144 (La.1975).
White v. General Motors Corp. 718 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Eastin v. Entergy Corp. 710 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
McCastle, supra ; Guste v. General Motors Corp., supra; -34 (La.1977)
Andry v. Murphy Oil, USA, Inc. 710 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
art. 597; -138 (La.1977).
Clement v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 699 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
Ford v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 703 So. 2d 542 La. 1997
Lewis v. Texaco Exploration Prod. Co. 698 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services of Louisiana, Inc., Boudreaux v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-0137, p. 6 (La.App.
Apolinar v. PROF. CONST. SERVICES, INC. 694 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Cotton v. Gaylord Container 691 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Pulver v. 1st Lake Properties, Inc. 681 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
1978) (on rehearing), *968 (La.App.
Ford v. Murphy Oil USA 681 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
art. 597; -38 (La.1977).
Ducote v. City of Alexandria 670 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Strong v. Bell South Communications, Inc. 643 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Dumas v. Angus Chemical Co. 635 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Adams v. CSX Railroads 615 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Becnel v. United Gas Pipeline Co. 613 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Rivera v. United Gas Pipeline Co. 613 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
(on rehearing), and Stevens v. *1154 Board of Trustees
Ellis v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 550 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Brown v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 506 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
591-595 and have been extensively discussed in several opinions of our Supreme Court, State ex rel.
Benelli v. City of New Orleans 478 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
O'Halleron v. Lec, Inc. 471 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Hunter v. Union Carbide Corp. 468 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Terrebonne Bank & Trust Co. v. Lacombe 464 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services of La., Inc. 456 So. 2d 612 La. 1984
Dixie Savings Ass'n v. Kinchin 454 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to meet the guidelines for a State ex rel.
Compass v. Pan American Life Ins. Co. 443 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
1975), and State ex rel.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by