Tyson v. Thompson Home Health, 79 So. 3d 246 (La. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Tyson v. Thompson Home Health, 79 So. 3d 246 (La. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“whether damage to the property is apparent or not, the personal nature of the right of the landowner at that time does not change, and remains with the landowner unless the right is explicitly assigned or subrogated to another”
357 citation events (357 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Vekic v. Popich (lactapp, 2017-03-29)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 45 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Vekic v. Popich
La. Ct. App. · 2017 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
whether damage to the property is apparent or not, the personal nature of the right of the landowner at that time does not change, and remains with the landowner unless the right is explicitly assigned or subrogated to another
examined Cited as authority (rule) Vinton Harbor & Terminal District v. Reunion Energy Company (15×) also: Cited "see"
La. · 2026 · confidence medium
The Subsequent Purchaser Rule The subsequent purchaser rule, which derives from civilian principles of property and obligations, provides that an owner of property has “no right or actual interest in recovering from a third party for damage which was inflicted on the property before his purchase, in the absence of an assignment or subrogation of the rights belonging to the owner of the property when the damage was inflicted.” Eagle Pipe, 10-2267, p.8, 79 So. 3d at 256-57.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G S M A L KENNELS LLC v. ESTATE OF TERRY V BILLS JR ET AL
W.D. La. · 2025 · confidence medium
Id. at 275-76.4 4 GSMAL submits that the subsequent purchaser doctrine “has become extremely limited following the Third Circuit’s most recent rejection of that doctrine in Castex Development, LLC v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation.” (Rec.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dr. Ralph Slaughter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, its Fiduciaries, ABC Insurance Company, the Clerks of Court for all District, Appellate, and Supreme Courts, the Judicial Administrator, 123 Insurance Company, and XYZ Insurance Company
La. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe and Supply, 10- 2267 at p. 7, 79 So. 3d at 256.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Swanson v. PeopleReady, Inc. (7×)
E.D. La. · 2024 · confidence medium
Aug. 23, 2016); Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So. 3d 246, 281 (La. 2011); Broussard v. Dow Chemical Co., 550 Fed.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Elizabeth W. Magner and Michael W. Magner v. Michael Deas (6×)
La. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Our Civil Code “classifies ‘things’ into different categories to which different rules may apply.” Id., 2010-2267, pp. 9-10, 79 So.3d at 257 (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Certain Underwriters at LLoyd's London v. Covington Flooring Company, Inc.
E.D. La. · 2024 · confidence medium
Augustine the right to make alterations and modifications to the premises, the right to obtain insurance, the right to resolve maintenance and repair issues, and the right to maintain in good condition all portions of the premises.80 The second provision of the lease agreement, titled “Acceptance of Premises” provides in pertinent part, “Tenant shall accept the Premises on the Effective Date in its “AS-IS” condition…” and “[t]he taking of possession of the Premises shall be conclusive evidence that Tenant accepts 77 See Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10–22…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Heirs of Lydia Bergeron, Wife of/and Sidney J. Simoneaux Land Partnership, a Limited Partnership v. B-P Amoco, Amerada Hess Corporation, Wm. T. Burton Industries, Inc., Brock Exploration Corporation, Mongrue Oil Company, Inc., Northwest Oil Company, Lynal, Incorporated, Quintana Petroleum Corporation, Quintana Petroleum (u.S.), Inc. (6×)
La. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Id., p.1, 79 So.3d at 252.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robert Talley v. Byron Baum and Priscilla J. Baum
La. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
P. art. 931; Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc., 79 So. 3d at 255.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Travelers Casualty & Surety Co of America v. Broussard
W.D. La. · 2023 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So. 3d 246, 256 (La. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Boudreaux v. Axiall Corp (13×) also: Cited "see"
W.D. La. · 2022 · confidence medium
Therein, the court describes the subsequent purchaser doctrine as follows: “[t]he subsequent purchaser rule is a jurisprudential rule which holds that an owner of property has no right or actual interest in recovering from a third party for damage which was inflicted on the property before his purchase, in the absence of an assignment or subrogation of the rights belonging to the owner of the property when the damage was inflicted.” See id. at 256-257.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Campo v. United States (2×)
Fed. Cl. · 2021 · confidence medium
B; however, “[j]udicial decisions . . . are not intended to be an authoritative source of law in Louisiana . . . . [O]ur civilian tradition does not recognize the doctrine of stare decisis in our state.” Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So. 3d 246, 256 (La. 2011) (quoting Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 774 So. 2d 119, 128 (La. 2000), opinion corrected on reh’g, 782 So. 2d 573 (La. 2001)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Campo v. United States (2×)
Fed. Cl. · 2021 · confidence medium
B; however, “[j]udicial decisions . . . are not intended to be an authoritative source of law in Louisiana . . . . [O]ur civilian tradition does not recognize the doctrine of stare decisis in our state.” Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So. 3d 246, 256 (La. 2011) (quoting Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 774 So. 2d 119, 128 (La. 2000), opinion corrected on reh’g, 782 So. 2d 573 (La. 2001)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Louisiana Wetlands, LLC and New 90, LLC v. Energen Resources Corporation, Chevron USA, Inc., Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC, EP Energy E&P Company, LP, and Brammer Engineering, Inc. (6×) also: Cited "see"
La. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
In Eagle Pipe, 79 So. 3d at 281, the court found that the plaintiff landowner did not have a right of action against the defendants who had damaged the property by their actions before the time the plaintiffhad acquired the land.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carl Foster v. Ronald Bias
La. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
P. art. 931; Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc., 79 So. 3d at 255; Grubbs v. Haven Custom Furnishings, LLC, 2018- 710, 2018- 711 ( La.
cited Cited as authority (rule) New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway Company v. American Midstream (Louisiana Intrastate), L.L.C. and American Midstream Partnership, L.P.
La. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
C.C. art. 533; Eagle Pipe, 79 So.3d at 258.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lexington Land Development, L.L.C. v. Chevron Pipe Line Company, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Dixon Management Corp., Kenmore Oil Co., Inc., The Stone Petroleum Corporation, Zinn Petroleum Company, Shell Pipeline Company, L.P., Stone Energy Corporation, Michael Madden, Scott Anderson and Greg Southwo (2×)
La. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe & Supply Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 79 So. 3d at 252.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Louisiana, Ex Rel. Justin Dale Tureau v. BEPCO, L.P., BOPCO, L.P., Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Chisolm Trail Ventures, L.P., and Hess Corporation, A Delaware Corporation (2×)
La. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
In Eagle Pipe & Supply, 79 So. 3d at 251, the Court held that a landowner, who discovered after the purchase of the land that it had been contaminated by an oil and trucking company prior to the sale, had no right to sue the oil and trucking company for that non -apparent property damage absent an assignment or subrogation of that right by the previous landowner.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anne Lowenburg, Judith Lowenburg, Wife of and Tom Lowenburg, Sarah Lowman, Jack Stolier, William B. Taylor, III, M.D. and Barbara West v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans (2×) also: Cited "see"
La. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe, [20]10-2267, pp. 42-43, 79 So.3d at 277; see also, La.
cited Cited as authority (rule) M. Leroy Harvey, Jr., William T. Jackson, John H. Jackson, Susan J. Vidrine, M.L. Harvey Sr. Trust for M. Leroy Harvey, Jr. and Children, Jackson Land Company, LLC, James F. Jackson, Frances J. Stafford and Laurie H. Harrington and M.L. Harvey Sr. Trust f v. Dan S. Collins, DSC Associates, LLC, and Dan S. Collins, CPL & Associates, Inc.
La. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc., 79 So. 3d at 256.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Custody of L.W.B. and M.N.B.
La. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc., 79 So. 3d at 256.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cotton Exchange Investment Properties, LLC v. Xcel Air Conditioning Services, Inc. (2×)
E.D. La. · 2019 · confidence medium
As stated above, a subsequent purchaser may not sue a tortfeasor for damage inflicted prior to her ownership “[i]n the absence of an assignment or subrogation of this personal right.” 79 So. 3d at 279.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cotton Exchange Investment Properties, LLC v. Xcel Air Conditioning Services, Inc.
E.D. La. · 2019 · confidence medium
True, in Eagle Pipe, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that even latent damage was subject to the subsequent purchaser rule. 79 So. 3d 246 at 279 (“The fact that a subsequent purchaser ‘discovers’ the continuing ill effects of the original tortious acts does not give rise to a new, discrete right of action in tort.”); see Prados v. S. Cent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nikola P. Vekic v. Dragutin Popich, Mary A. Popich & Helen Harris Popich
La. · 2017 · confidence medium
Finally, the Court of Appeal found that Mr. Vekic was precluded from entitlement to property damages through its erroneous application of the “subsequent purchaser doctrine” as articulated by this Court in Eagle Pipe, 79 So.3d at 256-57, where we explained: [A]n owner of property has no right or actual interest in recovery from a third party for damage which was inflicted on the property before his purchase in the absence of an assignment or subrogation of the rights belong to the owner of the property when the damage was inflicted.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Guilbeau v. 2 H, Incorporated (5×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
5th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Id. at 256-57. 8 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Nazario
Bankr. D.P.R. · 2015 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So.3d 246, 258 (La.2011) (citing Marcel Planiol and George Ripert, Treatise on the Civil Law, Property, Vol. 1, Part 2, no. 2332, p. 380 (12th ed.1939) (translated by the Louisiana State Law Institute with the authority of Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence (Paris)). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bundrick v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
La. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Despite reaching this conclusion, the supreme court noted that the Eagle Pipe dispute dealt specifically with surface leases and stated that it “express[ed] no opinion as to the applicability of our holding to fact situations involving mineral leases or obligations arising out of the Mineral Code.” Id. at 281, n. 80 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Boone v. Conoco Phillips Co. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
La. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc., 79 So.3d at 261-62 (footnotes omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pierce v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
La. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe, 79 So.3d at 255-56 (footnotes omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clyde Boyett v. Redland Insurance Co. (2×)
5th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So.3d 246, 256 (La.2011) (internal citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted). .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Ciolino v. First Guaranty Bank (4×) also: Cited "see"
La. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe, 79 So.3d at 269-270 (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries v. Gulfport Energy Corp.
La. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
The supreme court explained the appellate review of a ruling on this exception in Eagle Pipe v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, pp. 6-7 (La.10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246, 255-56 (additional citations omitted): “The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, p. 17 (La.12/2/08), 5 So.3d 819, 829 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thibco Investments, LLC v. Thibodeaux
La. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
However, the trial court did not reach the issue of whether the relocation clause was intended to be personal or heritable, finding that the provision was invalid as it impermissibly altered the general codal rules concerning predial servitudes. |sThe supreme court addressed the function and appellate review of exceptions of no right of action in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289, pp. 6-7 (La.10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246, 255-56 (footnotes omitted), stating: By filing a peremptory exception of no right of action, a defendant challenges whet…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Niemann v. Crosby Development Co. (4×) also: Cited "see"
La. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Eagle Pipe, 79 So.3d at 281, 79 So.3d 246 . .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wuellner Oil & Gas, Inc. v. EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.
W.D. La. · 2012 · confidence medium
Civ.Code Ann. art. 1763 (2010); Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So.3d 246, 281-83 (La.2011).
cited Cited "see" Amber, LLC v. Welsh Oil Co., Inc.
La. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 2010-2267 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So. 3d 246 , 282, fn. 81. 16 the surface, it is effective only as to depths below 10,000 feet.
cited Cited "see" Grace Ranch v. BP American Production
5th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eagle Pipe, 79 So.3d at 276 & n.71; Marin, 48 So.3d at 256 n.18.
cited Cited "see" Grace Ranch v. BP American Production
5th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eagle Pipe, 79 So.3d at 276 & n.71; Marin, 48 So.3d at 256 n.18.
cited Cited "see" Frigon v. Universal Pictures, Inc.
La. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation , 10-2267, pp. 39-40 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246 , 276.
cited Cited "see" State v. Astra Zeneca AB
La. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246 , 252-53 & 255.
discussed Cited "see" Fie, LLC v. New Jax Condo Ass'n, Inc.
La. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp. , 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289, pp. 10-11 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246 , 258 ; Giroir v. Dumesnil , 248 La. 1037 , 1050, 184 So.2d 1 , 6 (1966).
cited Cited "see" Old Republic Life Insurance Co. v. TransWood Inc.
La. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246 , 256.
discussed Cited "see" Nellie Pierce v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2×)
La. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246 (Weimer, J., dissenting at pp. 284-88, 291-93).
cited Cited "see" Borgnemouth Realty Co. v. Parish of St. Bernard
La. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, p. 7 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246, 256 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Daigle v. Cimarex Energy Co.
W.D. La. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Eagle Pipe & Supply v. Amerada Hess Corp. , 79 So.3d 246 , 290 (La. 10/25/11) ("the prescriptive articles [of the Louisiana Civil Code] reflect a legislative determination which rejects imprescriptible torts."); See also Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc. , 45 So.3d 991 , 1002 n. 12 (La. 7/6/10).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donna TYSON
v.
THOMPSON HOME HEALTH
2011-C-0760.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Oct 25, 2011.
79 So. 3d 246
Mahtook & LaFleur, LLC, Lafayette, Ward F. Lafleur, J. Keith Gates, Lisa M. Milazzo, K. Eric LaFleur, for Applicant., Flournoy & Doggett, Alexandria, George Arthur Flourney, for Respondent.
Victory, Weimer, Clark.
Published

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

|, We granted defendant’s application for a writ of certiorari in this case on June 3, 2011. After receiving briefing from the parties and reviewing the record of the matter, we conclude the judgment below does not require the exercise of this court’s supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of June 3, 2011 as improvidently granted, and we deny defendant’s writ application.

VICTORY, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Justice WEIMER. WEIMER, J., dissents for reasons assigned. CLARK, J., dissents.

Dissent

VICTORY, J.,

dissents.

|tI dissent for the reasons assigned by Justice Weimer.

Dissent

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

hi respectfully dissent. Having granted the writ in this matter, I would resolve the issues presented.

Dissent

CLARK, J.,

dissenting,

hi dissent.