Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ewell v. Petro-Processors of Louisiana, Inc., 366 So. 2d 575.

29 citing documents.

Patricia Ann Thompson v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
1 Cir. 1978), writ denied, (La.
Thompson v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. 158 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
1 Cir.1978), writ denied
Charles D. Isgitt v. State Farm Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
1 Cir. 1978), writ denied
Isgitt v. State Farm Ins. Co. 156 So. 3d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
1 Cir.1978), writ denied
Hww Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A Worldwide Professional Services v. Environmental Treatment Team, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
4 Cir. 1978), writ denied
MSOF CORP. v. Exxon Corp. 934 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
1st Cir.1978), writ denied, (La.
Alexander v. Lowes Companies 701 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
App. 1st Cir.1978), writ denied Sandbom v. BASF Wyandotte, Corp., 95-0335, pp. 1-2 (La.App.
Sandbom v. BASF Wyandotte Corp. 674 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
1st Cir. 1978), writ denied
Roman Catholic Church v. Louisiana Gas Service Co. 618 So. 2d 874 La. 1993
1st Cir.1978), writ ref., (1979) (owners of one-eighth undivided interest in 550 acres of land injured by toxic waste limited in recovery to the value of their interest, $25,000.00, where cost of restoration sought was $170 million); C. Chomsky, supra at 1484-87.
Distinguished Succession of Doll v. Doll 577 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Davenport v. Amax Nickel, Inc. 569 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
1st Cir.1978), writ denied
Parker v. Boise Southern Co. 570 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
1st Cir.1978), writ denied, Guillory v. Conoco, Inc., (La.App.
Davis v. State Farm Ins. Co. 558 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
1st Cir.1978), writ denied
Lebleu v. Southern Silica of Louisiana 554 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
1st Cir.1978) writ denied "
Triplette v. Exxon Corp. 554 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
App. 1st Cir.1978), writ denied
Massey v. Century Ready Mix Corp. 552 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
1st Cir.1978), writ denied
Short v. Mobil Oil Corp. 544 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
1st Cir.1978), writ denied
Thompson v. PetroUnited Terminals, Inc. 536 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
1st Cir. 1978), writ denied
Mouton v. State 525 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
1st Cir.1978), writ denied
Day v. Warren 524 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
1st Cir.1978), writ denied
Guillory v. CONOCO, INC., CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 521 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
1st Cir.1978), writ denied, (La.
Williams v. Gervais F. Favrot Co. 499 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
1st Cir. 1978) writ denied
Smith v. Zellerbach 486 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
1st Cir.1978), writ denied, : Ordinarily, an employer is not liable for offenses of an independent contractor committed in the course of performing his duties under the contract.
Matherne v. Terrebonne Parish Police Jury 462 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
1st Cir.1978), writ denied, wherein the court, treating concepts very similar to those here involved (albeit a suit against non-public entities by landowners), found the proper measure of damages to be the diminution in value of the affected property.
Fort v. Atkins 452 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Woodfield v. Dugas 450 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
1st Cir.1969), writ denied (La.
Succession of Hendrick 430 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
3d Cir.1978), writ refused
Emerson v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 393 So. 2d 691 La. 1981
The Court in Ewell v. Petro Processors of La., Inc., (1st Cir. 1979), writ den., cited by the appellate court, catalogued a few such factors including the extent of the damage; the use to which the property may be put; the extent of economic loss in terms of (market) value and income; and the cost and practicability of restoration.
Emerson v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance 387 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
As this court recently stated in Ewell v. Petro Processors of Louisiana, Inc., writ refused, : “We think that the proper measure of damages must be determined from the circumstances of each case, considering such factors as the extent of the damage; the use to which the property may be put; extent of economic loss, both as to value and income; and the cost of and practicability of restoration.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by