DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 657 So. 2d 975.

48 citing documents.

  • McGinnis v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF LOUISIANA 914 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    1 Cir. 5/20/94) , , aff'd, 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Wilson v. Transportation Consultants, Inc. 899 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Construing the limitation that it be "appropriate," the Louisiana Supreme Court in Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496, p. 7 (La.6/30/95), , stated that it means there must be evidence from which reasonable minds could conclude that the non-party was at fault.
  • Scarbrough v. OK Guard Dogs 879 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    See also Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496, p. 8 (La.6/30/95), ; Farbe v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, 00-0076, pp. 3-7 (La.7/6/00), -998 ; Dennis v. The Finish Line, Inc., 99-1413, 99-1414, pp. 40-43 (La.App.
  • Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 878 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    See also Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496, p. 8 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Overruled Bujol v. Entergy Services, Inc. 833 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    [26] Gauthier was overruled in Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496, p. 9 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Wingfield v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    However, in spite of the wording of the statute, this court has held that the presence in the suit of a co-employee joint tortfeasor, named or unnamed, brings the issue of any cap under the holding of Cavalier v. Cain’s Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), (superseded by 1996 statute).
  • Wingfield v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    However, in spite of the wording of the statute, this court has held that the presence in the suit of a co-employee joint tortfeasor, named or unnamed, brings the issue of any cap under the holding of Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), (superseded by 1996 statute).
  • Wiley v. City of New Orleans 809 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    is inherently a question to be determined by the courts" in Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95) at 7, at 980-81 out of context.
  • Castay v. ADM Growmark River Systems, Inc. 785 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Cavalier v. Cain’s Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Fleniken v. Entergy Corp. 780 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Subsequently, in Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496, p. 9 (La.6/30/95), , the court rejected its holding in Gauthier and reinstated its prior determination in Guidry that excluded the quantification of employer fault.
  • Overruled Snearl v. Mercer 780 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Two years later, Gauthier was overruled by Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496, p. 12 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Dennis v. the Finish Line, Inc. 781 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    [12] There is a line of cases suggesting that, when a court has erroneously allocated fault to a party, the reallocation of fault among the remaining tortfeasors should be accomplished by using a "ratio approach," and cited with approval in Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Brunet v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 772 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    [28] Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Grayson v. RB Ammon and Associates, Inc. 778 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Subsequently, in Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), , the Court rejected its holding in Gauthier and reinstated its prior determination in Guidry that excluded the quantification of employer fault.
  • In Re Basf Corporation's Exemption Permit 765 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    art. 2323 was held to require the quantification of fault of an employer in a personal injury action, contrary to the last pronouncement of the Louisiana Supreme Court in Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Billiot v. K-Mart Corp. 764 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    1st Cir.5/20/94), , affirmed, 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Adams v. Canal Indemnity Co. 760 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Therefore, the controlling law is Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95); .
  • Johnson v. Rogers & Phillips, Inc. 753 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Lacrouts v. Future Abrasives, Inc. 750 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    However, in 1994, when the present accident occurred, the applicable law precluded quantification of employer fault in third party tort actions, Cavalier v. Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank 738 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    See Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95); (Dennis, J., concurring) (superseded by statute as stated in Keith, ).
  • Hooker v. Super Products Corp. 751 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    art. 1812C [5] , as *902 expressed in Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95), .
  • Wingfield v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 716 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Gauthier v. O’Brien, overruled by Cavalier v. Cain’s Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95)
  • Muse v. Dunbar 716 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95); .
  • Glover v. Shiflett Transport Services, Inc. 718 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    art. 2323, the Supreme Court’s holding in Cavalier v. Cain’s Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95); , prevented the defendant from asserting the fault of a non-party and prevented the trier of fact from quantifying the fault of a non-party.
  • Walker v. McCartney 700 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95)
  • Bellard v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co. 702 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    In Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95); , the supreme court stated: Louisiana has long recognized that since the tort victim's release of one tortfeasor deprives the remaining tortfeasors of their contribution rights against the settling tortfeasor, the tort victim's recovery must be reduced by the proportionate share of the settling tortfeasor.
  • Petroleum Rental Tools, Inc. v. Hal Oil & Gas Co. 701 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    6/30/95); , the court held that the legislature had not specified which parties should have their fault quantified as directed in Article 1812(C).
  • Williams v. Galliano 697 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    art. 2324(C)(prior to amendment by Acts 1996, First Extraordinary Session, No. 3, § 1, effective April 16, 1996); Cavalier v. Cain’s Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496, p. 13, n. 9 (La.6/30/95); n. 9 .
  • Grant v. Allstate Ins. Co. 696 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    6/30/95); , the Supreme Court discussed this issue in depth.
  • Keith v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. 694 So. 2d 180 La. 1997
    Keith, relying on Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95); , responded by filing a motion to strike the allegation that the accident was caused by the fault of Keith's employer, K & D. After hearing oral argument, the trial court granted Keith's motion to strike.
  • Jackson v. Town of Grambling 690 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Grant v. Allstate Insurance Co. 688 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    In Cavalier v. Cain’s Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94- 1496 (La.6/30/95), , the Supreme Court discussed this issue Inin depth.
  • Moore v. Safeway, Inc. 700 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    6/30/95); , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a jury is required to quantify employer fault in tort cases.
  • Thornhill v. STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. 676 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    6/30/95); , the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that the quantification of fault of a person that no party sees fit to join in the suit as a defendant or a third party defendant is not required unless there is a compelling reason, such as in the case of a settling tortfeasor or a non-party whose negligence is imputable t
  • Green v. Claiborne Elec. Co-Op., Inc. 677 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    6/30/95), which had held that quantification of employer fault is suggested by LSA-C.C.P.
  • Landreneau v. Fruge 676 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • Clay v. International Harvester Co. 674 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    6/30/95), , constituting reversible error.
  • Couvillion v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 672 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    6/30/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the language of La.C.C.P.
  • Touchard v. Williams 671 So. 2d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    6/30/95), , explained the basis of the legislative compromise in La.Civ.Code art. 2324(B) as allowing the tort victim to “obtain some minimum percentage of full compensation from any person whose fault causally produced his or her damages.” Cavalier, 657 So.2d at 983 .
  • Abbyad v. Mathes Group 671 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    In support of this contention, plaintiffs cite Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95); .
  • LeBlanc v. Continental Grain Co., Inc. 672 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    6/30/95), in which it overruled Gauthier, declaring as follows at 982-983: We conclude that while quantification of the fault of a non-party settling tortfeasor is entirely appropriate and was probably contemplated by La.Code Civ.Proc.
  • Ventress v. Union Pacific RR Co. 666 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    6/30/95), , 982 the Supreme Court held that the fault of the immune employer should not be quantified saying: *1219 If employer fault were quantified, the tort victim ...
  • Stockstill v. CF Industries, Inc. 665 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    6/30/95), , the Supreme Court again addressed quantification of employer fault in tort cases.
  • Duplantis v. Danos 664 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    6/30/95); , the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that the quantification of fault of a person that no party sees fit to join in the suit as a defendant or a third party defendant is not required unless there is a compelling reason, such as in the case of a settling tortfeasor or a non-party whose negligence is imputable t
  • Mayeur v. Campbell 666 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Harper v. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORR. 664 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Lawrence v. Department of Transportation & Development 665 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    6/30/95), , 982-984: We conclude that while quantification of the | ¿fault of a non-party settling tortfeasor is entirely appropriate and was probably contemplated by La.Code Civ.Proc.
  • McCrea v. Mobil Oil Corp. 662 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995