DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So. 2d 1058.

226 citing documents.

  • Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 878 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Vodanovich v. AP Green Industries, Inc. 869 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir.1983), cert.
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Noyes 872 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    -1065 (La.1992); Peak v. Tuscaloosa Commerce Bank, 96-1258 (La.App.
  • Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 857 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    The Supreme Court, interpreted the term “events” to mean the incidents of exposure.
  • Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Calif. Union Ins. 859 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Kemp v. Armstrong World Industries 855 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    In finding that the “exposure rule” was applicable in Pitre the court noted: Although Mr. Pitre’s disease, if caused solely by cigarette smoking, would not be an occupational disease, we recognize that plaintiffs allege Mr. Pitre developed lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos in the workplace and exposure to tobacco smoke.
  • Jackson v. Rubicon, Inc. 844 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    The supreme court stated: The court of appeal found that a solidary obligation arose in this case from the law, relying on Cole v. Celotex,[ ] supra, in which “the Louisiana Supreme Court held that various asbestos defendants are solidari *398 ly liable for damages suffered by plaintiffs.” 787 So.2d at 1060.
  • Breaux v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 842 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    operates to bar the Louisiana suit.
  • Bourgeois v. GREEN INDUSTRIES 841 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    the Louisiana Supreme Court set out a framework for determining when a cause of action accrues in long-latency occupational disease cases.
  • Powell v. Weaver 841 So. 2d 742 La. 2003
    1076 n. 54 (La.1992) ("The contraction theory, however, is fraught with difficulties: `[t]he problem with this approach is that it is extremely difficult to accurately fix the point in time at which the disease is contracted.'
  • Marmino v. City of Crowley 829 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Ethyl Corp. v. Gulf States Utilities, Inc. 836 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Entergy avers that, because the conduct constituting the tort occurred prior to the effective date of Act 431 and resulted in the manifestation of damages after the Act's effective date, pre-act contributory negligence law applies.
  • Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc. 824 So. 2d 1137 La. 2002
    For the reasons set forth below, for fixing the date of accrual for a cause of action under La.
  • Hebert v. ANCO Insulation, Inc. 835 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that Act 431 of 1979 applied prospectively.
  • Hoerner v. ANCO Insulations, Inc. 812 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    The Louisiana Supreme Court further explained as follows in Cole, : Canter stands for the proposition that a suit against an executive officer is for his personal, as opposed to derivative, fault.
  • Berlier v. AP Green Industries, Inc. 815 So. 2d 39 La. 2002
    The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the four settling defendants were solidarily liable for the settlement as a matter of law
  • Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc. 801 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Sawicki v. K/S STAVANGER PRINCE 802 So. 2d 598 La. 2001
  • Emery v. Owens-Corporation 813 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Anderson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 798 So. 2d 93 La. 2001
    [3] we discussed the reasons for the difficulties in applying traditional tort concepts to asbestosis cases: The uniqueness of asbestosis cases and the difficulties of trying to fit such cases within the framework of concepts designed to handle traditional torts has been recognized: "`the factual predicate givi
  • Rogers v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 796 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • EOP New Orleans, L.L.C. v. Louisiana Tax Commission 809 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Matrana v. AVONDALE INDUS., INC. 803 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Followed Martin v. State, Charity Hospital & Medical Center of Louisiana ex rel. Louisiana Health Care Authority 811 So. 2d 3 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Walls, 740 So.2d at 1271 -72 ().
  • In Re Belle Co., LLC 809 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Bd., 93-1916 (La.2/28/94), ; (La.
  • In Re Medical Review Panel, Claim of Moses 788 So. 2d 1173 La. 2001
    [12] explaining the unique nature of occupational disease cases, resulting from continuous tortious exposure causing a continuous process—slowly developing hidden disease—and contrasting such cases with traditional torts, involving damages resulting from a single, identifiable event.
  • Trentecosta v. Beck 786 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Rivard v. Petroleum Transport Co., Inc., 95-0431 (La.App.
  • Berlier v. A.P. Green Industries, Inc. 787 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Even assuming that the settlement agreement in question in this case does not contain a clear expression of the intent of the four settling defendant companies to be solidarily liable for the settlement amount — an issue which we expressly do not reach- — -solidarity may also arise “from the law.” the Louisiana Supreme Court held that various asbestos defendants are solidarity liable for damages suffered by plaintiffs.
  • Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc. 785 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    the date of exposure to asbestos determines the applicable workers' compensation law.
  • Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp. 785 So. 2d 1 La. 2001
  • Bourgeois v. AP Green Industries, Inc. 783 So. 2d 1251 La. 2001
  • Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 784 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    In support of their position, and cases cited therein, which, they argue, hold that a plaintiffs cause of action does not accrue until he has "contracted" his disease.
  • Brunet v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 772 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • Anderson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 769 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that cases arising from occupational exposures present difficulties in determining when an injured plaintiffs cause of action arises.
  • In Re Basf Corporation's Exemption Permit 765 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Keith v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 96-2075 (La.5/9/97), ; Rousselle v. Plaquemines Parish School Board, 93-1916 (La.2/28/94), ; Adams v. City of Baton Rouge, 95-2515 (La.App.
  • James Pest Control v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. 765 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    the Supreme Court adopted the "exposure theory" under which "coverage is triggered by the exposure to the harmful conditions during the policy period."
  • Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc. 761 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Hubbs v. Anco Insulations, Inc. 747 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Dean v. STATE, DOTD 749 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage Dist.
  • Falgout v. Dealers Truck Equipment Co. 748 So. 2d 399 La. 1999
  • Walls v. American Optical Corp. 740 So. 2d 1262 La. 1999
    Brown v. Drillers, Inc., 93-1019 (La.1/14/94), , the court below concluded that the wrongful death claim of the relatives of Mr. Walls did not arise until March 17, 1995, the date he died, long after the October 1, 1976 effective date of the amendment to La.
  • Silvio v. State 739 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    However, I -64, n. 15 (La.1992).
  • King v. Phelps Dunbar, LLP 743 So. 2d 181 La. 1999
  • Dufour v. EZ SERVE CONVENIENCE STORES 731 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Pitre v. GAF Corp., 97-1024 (La.App.
  • Hoyt v. Robinson 731 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    It reasons that because that act is silent as to prospective or retroactive application, the threshold inquiry should be whether it was merely procedural, in which case it should be applied both prospectively and retroactively, or whether it was instead substantive, in which case it could only apply prospectively
  • Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Serv., Inc. 730 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether Act 431 of 1979 was correctly applied in litigation filed after enactment of the legislation, for injuries which occurred prior to the enactment of the legislation.
  • Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. 726 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • Nassif v. Sunrise Homes, Inc. 720 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Jamison v. Hilton 721 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    the Louisiana Supreme Court instructed: "Prospective operation of statutes is a general rule and, as a general rule, it is respected by the courts.
  • Callaway v. Anco Insulation, Inc. 714 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    that injury producing events determine the time at which a claim arises, as well as the controlling law, when it is alleged that earlier exposure resulted in a belated manifestation of damages.