DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hawthorne Oil & Gas Corp. v. Continental Oil Co., 377 So. 2d 285.

43 citing documents.

  • Doris Kay Henry v. Marlan W. Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    the supreme court found no merit in the trust’s argument because the trust did not carry its burden of proving that there was an exception to the general venue provisions that specify St.
  • Henry v. Anderson 60 So. 3d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    the supreme court found no merit in the trust’s argument because the trust did not carry its burden of proving that there was an exception to the general venue provisions that specify St.
  • Arc Industries, L.L.C. v. William H. Nungesser La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    art. 42; see also Hawthorne Oil & Gas Corp. v. Cont’l Oil Co., (“Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure enunciates the general rule of venue that a person must be sued at his domicile.”).
  • Arc Industries, LLC v. Nungesser 970 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    art. 42; see also Hawthorne Oil & ("Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure enunciates the general rule of venue that a person must be sued at his domicile.").
  • French Jordan, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co. 958 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    As a result, these alternative venue provisions are no longer exceptions to Article 42's "home base" venue that should be strictly construed as was formerly required under Hawthorne Oil & (La.
  • Spinosa v. Spinosa 934 So. 2d 35 La. 2006
  • Bloomer v. LOUISIANA WORKERS'COMPENSATION 767 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    As a result, these alternative venue provisions are no longer exceptions to Article 42's "home base" venue that should be strictly construed, as was formerly required under Hawthorne Oil &amp
  • CLK COMPANY, LLC v. CXY Energy Inc. 719 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    However, the Grezaffi court declared that exceptions to the general rule of venue must be strictly construed and the party claiming the benefit of the exception must be clearly within the exception, (La.
  • Person v. TL James & Co., Inc. 712 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • Schiro v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. 703 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    As a result, these alternative venue provisions are no longer exceptions to Article 42’s “home base” venue that should be strictly construed, as was formerly required under Hawthorne Oil &amp
  • Barham v. Richard 692 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    As a result, these alternative venue provisions are no longer exceptions to Article 42's "home base" venue that should be strictly construed, as was formerly required under Hawthorne Oil &amp
  • James Minge & Associates v. HANOVER INS. 692 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    art. 76.1 creates an exception to the general rule of venue and as such should be strictly construed in favor of the general rule of venue, citing Hawthorne Oil & Gas Corp. *733 v. Continental Oil Co., (La.
  • Prokop v. Mack Trucks, Inc. 694 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    As a result, these alternative venue provisions are no longer exceptions to Article 42’s “home base” venue that should be strictly construed, as was formerly required under Hawthorne Oil &amp
  • Simmons v. Templeton 684 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Breslin & Murray v. AMERASIA CO. INC. 694 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • Guaranty Bank of Mamou v. State 677 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    As a result, these alternative venue provisions are no longer exceptions to Article 42's "home base" venue that should be strictly construed as was formerly required under Hawthorne Oil &amp
  • G.C. & K.B. Investment, Inc. v. Otillio 672 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Hawthorne Oil & Sutton Steel & Supply, Inc. v. Southland Steel & Supply, Inc., 93-1666 (La.App.
  • McINNIS BROS. CONSTR., INC. v. PEOPLES WATER SERVICE CO. 666 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    the court explained that Article 76.1 should no longer be strictly construed as was formerly required under Hawthorne Oil & Article 76.1 is no longer an exception to the general "home base" venue rule set forth in Article 42 but, instead, is part of that rule.
  • Operational Technologies Corp. v. Environmental Contractors, Inc. 665 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    As a result, these alternative venue provisions were said to no longer be exceptions to Article 42's "home base" venue that should be strictly construed, as was formerly required under Hawthorne Oil &amp
  • Jordan v. Central Louisiana Elec. Co., Inc. 656 So. 2d 988 La. 1995
    As a result, these alternative venue provisions are no longer exceptions to Article 42's "home base" venue that should be strictly construed, as was formerly required under Hawthorne Oil &amp
  • Jordan v. Central Louisiana Electric Co. 657 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Sutton Steel v. Southland Steel 640 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Hawthorne Oil & (La.
  • Keele v. Knecht 621 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Fogleman Truck Line, Inc. v. Southern Bulk Carriers, Inc. (La.App.
  • Daniels v. Rachal 610 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. 601 So. 2d 1355 La. 1992
    In Hawthorne Oil & this Court held that unless a plaintiff shows its action comes clearly within one or more of the exceptions provided in La.
  • Phillips Petroleum Co. v. OKC Ltd. Partnership 582 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    Distinguish, Hawthorne Oil & [plaintiff sought rescission of a gas purchase agreement, a contract with a movable for its object], Nevertheless, as venue exceptions are in derogation of a common right, they must be strictly construed and the party claiming the benefit of an exception must bring itself clearly within the exception.
  • Hill v. Hill 575 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Grezaffi v. Smith 572 So. 2d 183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Taylor v. Shreveport Airport Authority 564 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    Glover v. Mayer, 209 La.
  • Fogleman Truck Line, Inc. v. SO. BULK CARRIERS, INC. 532 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    See, Hawthorne Oil & (La.App.
  • Akins v. Jefferson Parish 529 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    1st Cir.1987); and Hawthorne Oil & -87 (La.1979).
  • Kellis v. Farber 523 So. 2d 843 La. 1988
  • Petro Point 5000 v. deGRAAUW 520 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Hawthorne Oil & (La.
  • Travis v. Waste Management of Miss., Inc. 509 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Belser v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. 509 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Reliance Trust v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp. 499 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Leger v. Petroleum Engineers, Inc. 499 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    3rd Cir.1979), reversed on other grounds
  • U-Serve Petroleum & Investments, Inc. v. Cambre 486 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    3rd Cir.), reversed on other grounds
  • Simmons v. Hope Contractors, Inc. 447 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Huber Oil Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Save-Time 422 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Edmond v. Webre 413 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    In connection with the venue rules, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Hawthorne Oil & has stated: "The general rules of venue provided in art. 42 are subject to exceptions provided in arts.
  • J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc. 404 So. 2d 896 La. 1981
    3d Cir., rev'd on other grounds, (La.
  • Hobbs v. Central Equip. Rentals, Inc. 382 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    our Supreme Court held that a contract to purchase natural gas was a contract to sell a movable, since delivery was to take place after the gas left the wellhead.