Cited by

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

226 citing documents.

Boone v. State, ex rel. Department of Health & Hospitals 709 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Genusa v. Dominique 708 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Rousselle v. Plaquemines Parish School *790 Board, 93-1916, p. 10 (La.2/28/94), ; Adams v. City of Baton Rouge, 95-2515, p. 11 (La.App.
Meredith v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. 707 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
In support of this argument, which indicated that asbestos litigation should be considered sui generis, not subject to previously established rules.
Frain v. City of Baton Rouge 704 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Pitre v. GAF Corp. 705 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
plaintiffs urge the "exposure rule" is applicable in tort cases involving long-latency diseases.
Sudwischer v. Estate of Huffpauir 705 So. 2d 724 La. 1997
Paul Fire & Marine, supra ; Segura v. Frank, 93-C-1271 (La.1/14/94)
Legros v. Westlake Polymers Corp. 704 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Reeder v. North 701 So. 2d 1291 La. 1997
Bourgeois v. A.P. Green Industries, Inc. 703 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
at 1063, n. 15 (La.1992)
Walls v. American Optical Corp. 703 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
wherein the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether to apply precomparative fault law in a tort suit filed by three workers against the executive officers of their employer.
Gauthe v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. 703 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
as authority for the proposition that the law in effect during the time of the tortious exposure and resultant injury is applicable in an occupational disease/wrongful death action.
Young v. ED Bullard Co. 703 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
The rationale of the above line of cases is that the tortious conduct which occurred prior to 1976, gave rise to a cause of action at that time
McClendon v. Keith Hutchinson Logging 702 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Lafayette Parish School Board, Sales Tax Division v. State ex rel. Department of Revenue & Taxation 701 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
we outlined a two-step analysis for resolving this statutory construction question under LSA-C.C.
Batiste v. Capitol Home Health 699 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Hart v. Jack Mims, Inc. 698 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Manuel v. Louisiana Sheriff's Risk Management Fund, 95-0406 (La.11/27/95)
Sharbono v. Steve Lang & Son Loggers 696 So. 2d 1382 La. 1997
Arabie v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. 698 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
The plaintiffs argue that Mr. Arabie's cancer is the result of his 35-year addiction to cigarettes and, therefore, using the rationale of Cole v. Celotex Corp., et al., pre-LPLA law should control.
Bellard v. Johnson 692 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
CROWN BEVERAGE v. Dixie Brewing Co. 695 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Keith v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. 694 So. 2d 180 La. 1997
Osborne v. Ladner 691 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Guillot v. Blue Cross of Louisiana 690 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
and Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
State ex rel. T.T.L. 688 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Domingue v. Rodrigue 686 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Henderson v. Maloid 683 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Loupe v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 685 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Sperandeo v. Denny's, Inc. 683 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
the court set forth the proper analysis to be used in determining whether statutes are to be applied prospectively or retroactively.
Elswick v. Highway Transport 680 So. 2d 1364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Cowan v. Ensminger 677 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Billingsley v. Mitchell 676 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
the Supreme Court stated: LSA-C.C.
Hendrick v. STONE, PIGMAN, WALTHER, ETC. 677 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Thomas v. Armstrong World Industries 676 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
See, , 1066 and 1067 (La.1992); Smith v. Gretna Machine and Iron Works, 94-369, p. 5-6 (La.App.
Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 677 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Gygax v. Brugoto 674 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
for the definition of “cause of action”.
Blanchard v. City Parish of East Baton Rouge 674 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Adams v. City of Baton Rouge 673 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Johnson v. Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office 669 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
App. 3rd Cir.1991), affirmed
Morris v. Friedman 663 So. 2d 19 La. 1995
Manuel v. La. Sheriff's Risk Mgmt. Fund 664 So. 2d 81 La. 1995
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Valentine 665 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Whether the trial court erred in adopting as a "trigger" for coverage under the Maryland policy the theory of manifestation of damages, as opposed to the "exposure" (La.
Malloy v. Vanwinkle 662 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Rivard v. Petroleum Transport Co., Inc. 663 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Morgan v. Campbell, Campbell & Johnson 661 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Dibler v. Highland Clinic 661 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Lafayette Ins. v. Ce Albert Const. Co. 661 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Lafayette argues that the trial court's reliance on Dee, supra
Prejean v. Dixie Lloyds Ins. Co. 660 So. 2d 836 La. 1995
Lieber v. Caddo Levee Dist. Bd. of Com'rs 660 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
1992); Rousselle v. Plaquemines Parish School Bd., supra.
Prejean v. Dixie Lloyds Ins. Co. 655 So. 2d 303 La. 1995
Young v. Logue 660 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Sellers v. American Optical, No. 82-3235, 729 F.2d 777 (5th Cir.1984) (award of $240,000); Byrd v. Hunt Tool Shipyards, Inc., 650 F.2d 44, 46 (5th Cir.1981) (award of $150,000); Woodward Iron Co. v. Minyard, 170 F.2d 508, 510 (5th Cir.1948) (award of $10,000); (award of $300,000 in asbestosis case); Atkinson v. Celotex Corp., 93-924 (La.