Quick v. Murphy Oil Co.
Also decided on this docket: La., April 2, 1984 447 So. 2d 1074
Quick v. Murphy Oil Co., 447 So. 2d 1074 (La. 1984).
Cited by
- Ceasar v. Hebert 926 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
- Irving Ceasar v. Sheriff Sid Hebert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
- Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 921 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
- Powell v. Weaver 841 So. 2d 742 La. 2003
- Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc. 824 So. 2d 1137 La. 2002
- Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Serv., Inc. 730 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
- Hurst v. Boland Machine & Manufacturing Co. 713 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
- Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc. 618 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
- Cole v. Celotex Corp. 599 So. 2d 1058 La. 1992
- Wallace v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 578 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
- Holmes v. Pottharst 557 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
- Lebleu v. Southern Silica of Louisiana 554 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Waldrop v. Uniroyal, Inc. 438 So. 2d 1114
Opinion text
447 So.2d 1074 (1984) Arthur QUICK v. MURPHY OIL COMPANY, et al. No. 84-C-0386. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 2, 1984. Writ denied. The result, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings, is correct. We decline, however, to express an opinion at this stage of the proceeding as to whether the date of "contraction" can be established with sufficient legal certainty to hold that the cause of action arises at that time. Such a determination *1075 necessarily requires expert testimony explaining how such time, or period of time, can be established. Until such a record is before the court, the issue cannot be fairly resolved. See Owens v. Martin, 438 So.2d 1114 (La.1984).