DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 666 So. 2d 624.

124 citing documents.

  • Roland v. Owens 786 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    Revision Comments; Terrebonne Fuel & Lube v. Placid Refining, 95-0654, 95-0671 (La.1/16/96), .
  • LOUISIANA WORKERS'COMP. CORP. v. Betz 792 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    As the court in Terrebonne Fuel and Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Company, 95-0654 (La.1/16/96), , 632 stated as guidance for reviewing a claim of res judicata: The central inquiry is not whether the second action is based upon the same cause of action, but whether the second action asserts a cause of action which arises out of the transaction or occurrence which was the subject matter of the first action.
  • Bauer v. Maestri 781 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    See: Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 95-0654 (La.1/16/96), ; Seale v. Abadie, 99-771 (La.App.
  • R.B. 778 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Company, 95-0654, 95-0671, pp. 11-12 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Tate v. Prewitt 769 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Terrebonne Fuel and Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Company, 95-0654 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Hudson v. City of Bossier 766 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    13:4231; Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Company, 95-0654, 95-0671 (La.01/16/96), .
  • Triche v. Crescent Turnkey & Engineering, LLC 744 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 95-0654, 95-0671 (La.1/16/96), , appeal after remand, 93-2364 (La.App.
  • Jackson v. Iberia Parish Government 732 So. 2d 517 La. 1999
    LSA-RS 13:4231 (West 1991) [7] ; Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 95-0654, 95-0671, p. 16 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Leon v. Moore 731 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Company, 95-0654, 95-0671, p. 11-12 (La.1/16/96); .
  • Richardson v. Parish of Jefferson 727 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 95-0654, 95-0671 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Duffy v. Si-Sifh Corp. 726 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    In Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Company, 95-0654 c/w 95-0671 (La.1/16/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the amended law on res judicata as follows: Res judicata is an issue preclusion device found both in federal law and in state law.
  • Chaisson v. Oceanside Seafood 713 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Avenue Plaza, L.L.C. v. Falgoust, 96-0173 (La.7/2/96), ; Terrebonne Fuel & Lube v. Placid Refining Co., 95-0654, 95-0671 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Gilbert v. Visone 708 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 95-0654 p. 16 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Stroik v. Ponseti 699 So. 2d 1072 La. 1997
    Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 95-0654, p. 13 (La.1/16/96), ; RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 26(b) (Preclusive effect fails to attach to the first action if "[t]he court in the first action has expressly reserved the plaintiff's right to maintain the second action.").
  • Johnson v. Acadiana Ry. Co. 693 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 95-654, 95-671 (La.1/16/96); .
  • Williams v. Insurance Co. of North America 692 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    1191 , 127 L.Ed.2d 541 (1994), held: ‘When a state court is required to determine the preclusive effects of a judgment rendered by a federal court exercising federal question jurisdiction, it is the federal law of res judica-ta that must be applied.” Accord Terrebonne Fuel & Lube v. Placid Refining Co., Nos. 95-C-0654, 95-C-0671 (La.1/16/96), (In Reeder , “we determined that when a state court is called upon to decide the preclusive effect of a judgment rendered by a federal court exercising
  • Arthur v. Zapata Haynie Corp. 690 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Co., 95-0654, 95-0671 (La.1/16/96); .
  • Sharp v. Johnson Bros. Corp. 687 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 95-0654, 95-0671 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Conrad v. SWISS CHALET PICNIC GROUNDS 686 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Terrebonne Fuel & Lube
  • Ray v. Leatherman 688 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    In Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 95-654 and 95-671 (La.1/16/96); , the supreme court applied the principles enunciated in Reeder, , to a Bankruptcy Court order confirming the debtor's Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.
  • Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. PLACID REFINING COMPANY 681 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    The Supreme Court reversed ( See Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Company, 95-0654 (La.1/16/96), , held that the plaintiff's claim was not barred by res judicata, and remanded to us for consideration of the merits.)
  • Westridge v. Claiborne Builders, Inc. 681 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., (La.1996), (citations omitted).
  • Avenue Plaza, LLC v. Falgoust 676 So. 2d 1077 La. 1996
    Terrebonne Fuel & Lube v. Placid Refining, 95-0654, 95-0671, pp. 11-12 (La.1/16/96); .
  • Schlesinger v. Herzog 672 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    1/16/96), , citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 26 (1982), at 233-234.