DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dusenbery v. McMoRan Exploration Co., 458 So. 2d 102.

17 citing documents.

  • Willis v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation 140 So. 3d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Dusenbery v. McMoRan Exploration, Co., ” As an initial matter, we note that neither the PCF’s proposed indemnity charge, nor the case cited in support thereof, in any way refer to the statutory indemnity provision of La.
  • Hesse v. Champ Service Line 828 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    (citation and footnote omitted).
  • Eppinette v. City of Monroe 698 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    In Dusenbery v. *669 McMoran Exploration Company, it was held that indemnity is available in some (but not all) cases of strict liability.
  • Williams v. City of Monroe 658 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the defendant-owner of an oil well (which contained an unreasonably dangerous condition), although solidarily liable to the plaintiff as the owner of the well, was entitled to full indemnity against the defendant-contractor whose employees created the unreasonably dange
  • Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd. 650 So. 2d 712 La. 1995
    Consider, for example, a pre-comparative fault case.
  • Burke v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 554 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    an oilfield worker was killed due to a defective condition in an oil well's pressure system.
  • Travelers Insurance Co. v. Empiregas, Inc. of Oak Grove 545 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Dusenbery v. *709 McMoRan Exploration Co.
  • D & O CONTR., INC. v. Terrebonne Parish Sch. Bd. 545 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Gotro v. Town of Melville 527 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    On the other hand, Melville argues that if it is liable, it has a right, as a party who is responsible to Gotro because of strict liability, to seek indemnification and/or contribution from Mar-Len because Mar-Len is the party whose active fault caused the dangerous condition, the rut.
  • Clement v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 528 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Carlsen v. Mehaffey & Daigle, Inc. 519 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    It is rather whether indemnification was properly awarded to M & the court addressed the question of indemnification to a strictly liable party by a negligent party as follows: The indemnification claim is based not on the relationship between the owner of the structure and the injured party, but upon the relationship between the owner and the party who actually created
  • Carter v. Deitz 505 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Hart v. Baker Marine Corp. 493 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    1st Cir.1983), reversed in part
  • Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc. 482 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Distinguished Willis v. Cajun Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 484 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    App. 1st Cir.1983), reversed in part on other grounds, cited by appellees, is factually distinguishable from the instant case.
  • Vicknair v. Hibernia Bldg. Corp. 468 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed a similar situation.
  • Winterrowd v. Travelers Indem. Co. 462 So. 2d 639 La. 1985