Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Williams v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of NO, 611 So. 2d 1383.

139 citing documents.

Robin v. Hebert 157 So. 3d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
of New Orleans, quoting Hoefly v. Gov’t Employees Ins.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Kenneth Forrestier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Forrestier 112 So. 3d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Ansardi v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. 111 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Huddleston v. Huddleston 106 So. 3d 567 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
of New Orleans, Scranton, supra.
Coston v. Seo 99 So. 3d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Marvin W. Buxton v. William Corbello La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Citing Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, (La.1993), Buxton contends that his suit against Iowa for workers’ compensation benefits interrupted prescription against the DOTD.
Buxton v. Corbello 82 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Citing Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, , (La.1993), Buxton contends that his suit against Iowa for workers’ compensation benefits interrupted prescription against the DOTD.
Glasgow v. PAR MINERALS CORP. 70 So. 3d 765 La. 2011
Manning v. PFG-Caro Foods 71 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
of New Orleans, and Hoefly v. Gov’t Employees Ins.
Judy Lyons v. Ann Knight La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Lyons v. Knight 65 So. 3d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Darren Dugas v. Bayou Teche Water Works, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Dugas v. Works 61 So. 3d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Kirk Richard v. Kimberly Babin Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Mitchell S. Glasgow v. Par Minerals Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Despite the Appellant’s best efforts to show otherwise, principally by citing to Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, there is no jurisprudential basis supporting this position.
In Re Medical Review Panel Proceedings of Berry 30 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Bourg v. Woods 31 So. 3d 1123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
of New Orleans, Morris v. Westside Transit Line, 02-1029, p. 4 (La.App.
Reinhardt v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS (NOPD) 30 So. 3d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
of New Orleans, operated to interrupt | ^prescription of the workers’ compensation claim when the tort suit was filed before that claim); Wilson v. City of Shreveport, 28,846 (La.App.
Mary Ann Charles Calbert v. Orlando J. Batiste La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Calbert v. Batiste 23 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 21 So. 3d 186 La. 2009
Explained Cutsinger v. Redfern 12 So. 3d 945 La. 2009
Bosworth v. Alpha Mutual, L.L.C. 6 So. 3d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Bellard v. American Cent. Ins. Co. 980 So. 2d 654 La. 2008
§ 51 , et seq., and a tortfeasor; and, in Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, we repeated the analysis to find solidary liability between an employer and a third party tortfeasor.
Jackson v. JEFFERSON PARISH CLERK OF COURT 981 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
of New Orleans, See: Morris v. Westside Transit Line, 02-1029, p. 4 (La.App.
OIL INS. LTD. v. Dow Chemical Co. 977 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, Succession of Daigle, XXXX-XXXX, pp. 6-7 (La.App.
Huth v. Pickering 966 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
of New Orleans, Castaneda v. Louisiana Ins.
Jarrell v. West Jefferson Medical Center 956 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Gambel v. U-PARK SYSTEMS OF LOUISIANA, INC. 952 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Evans v. Smith 945 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
*186 In Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, the supreme court held that the obligation of the employer and the tort liability of the third-party tort-feasor were solidary to the extent they shared coextensive liability to repair certain elements of the same damage.
Roy E. Evans v. Derrick D. Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
In Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, the supreme court held that the obligation of the employer and the tort liability of the third-party tort-feasor were solidary to the extent they shared coextensive liability to repair certain elements of the same damage.
Bureaus Investment Group 2, LLC v. Howard 947 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
White v. Robinson Lumber Co. 929 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Pauline Mitchell v. Father Robert Limoges La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Mitchell v. Limoges 923 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Stewart Head, Et Ux. v. Shetler Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
of New Orleans, this court concluded that prescription was interrupted with regard to an injured employee’s claims against a third-party tortfeasor when the employee filed a timely suit seeking workers’ compensation benefits from his employer.
Head v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. 916 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
of New Orleans, this court concluded that prescription was interrupted with regard to an injured employee’s claims against a third-party tortfeasor when the employee filed a timely suit seeking workers’ compensation benefits from his employer.
Viada v. a & a MacHine Works, Inc. 914 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
appellants aver that the relationship between the workers' compensation obligor and tortfeasors or UM insurers is solidary to the extent of the overlapping obligations.
In Re Evans 906 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
In Re: Ella Evans La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Segura v. Cleco Power, LLC 900 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Plaintiff contends that the timely filing of the workers' compensation claim interrupted prescription as to Cleco and Hebert pursuant to Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans
Calvin G. Segura, Jr. v. Cleco Power, LLC and Jason Hebert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
3 Plaintiff contends that the timely filing of the workers’ compensation claim interrupted prescription as to Cleco and Hebert pursuant to Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans
Samuel Alexander v. Thiokol Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Discussion On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that their negligence action against Thiokol was brought in the proper court and that the executive officers are solidarily liable with Thiokol based upon the supreme court’s definition of that principle in Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans
Alexander v. Thiokol Corp. 893 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Discussion On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that their negligence action against Thiokol was brought in the proper court and that the executive officers are solidarily liable with Thiokol based upon the supreme court’s definition of that principle in Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans
Carter v. Haygood 892 So. 2d 1261 La. 2005
Waguespack v. Judge 877 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
of New Orleans, Campo v. Correa 2001-2707 (La.6/21/02), .
William N. Keller v. Cleadieus McLeod La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Keller v. McLeod 866 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Eastin v. Entergy Corp. 865 So. 2d 49 La. 2004