Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Aldredge v. Whitneygreen2 sentences2004The Third Circuit referred to Aldredge v. Whitney, 591 So.2d 1201, 1207 (La.App. 2 Cir.1991), in which the Second Circuit stated: [In Shepard v. State Farm Mut. 1995She opposes the exceptions solely on the basis of Aldredge, supra. There, the husband’s consortium claim arising from the wife’s pre-marriage car accident withstood an exception of no right of action because the wife, whose doctor initially diagnosed her injuries as “minor,” had had no symptoms of a lumbar disc injury when she was married in June 1989, five months after the January 1989 accident. | 1 | 3 |
Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp.green2 sentences2011Spears, supra; Simpson v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 636 So.2d 608 (La.App. 1st Cir.1993), writs denied, 94-0042, 94-1005 (La.05/06/94), 637 So.2d 471 , 472. |aiThus, we must be careful to differentiate between that which is recoverable as an element of the consortium claim and that which is not recoverable absent the existence of a cause of action for individual mental distress under La.Civ.Code art. *555 2315.6 and the holding in Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hospital, 556 So.2d 559 (La.1990). 1990Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hospital, 556 So.2d at 570, n. 12 . | 1 | 2 |
Glankler v. Rapides Parish School Bd.green1 sentence2004(Emphasis added.) In Glankler v. Rapides Parish School Board, 610 So.2d 1020, 1036 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992), the Third Circuit found that the mother's consortium claim was derived from the daughter's injuries. | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Celotex Corp.green1 sentence2004Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 03-0719, 03-0993, 03-1002 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 117 (" Landry I "). [2] In Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058, 1065-1066 (La.1992), we explained: The uniqueness of asbestosis cases and the difficulties of trying to fit such cases within the framework of concepts designed to handle traditional torts has been recognized: "`the factual predicate giving rise to potential liability from asbestos exposure is simply different from those that generated most tort doctrines ... [and thus such cases differ] in legally important aspects from those types of injurie | 1 | 1 |
Wilford Leroy Thompson, Jr. v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.green1 sentence2004Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 03-0719, 03-0993, 03-1002 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 117 (" Landry I "). [2] In Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058, 1065-1066 (La.1992), we explained: The uniqueness of asbestosis cases and the difficulties of trying to fit such cases within the framework of concepts designed to handle traditional torts has been recognized: "`the factual predicate giving rise to potential liability from asbestos exposure is simply different from those that generated most tort doctrines ... [and thus such cases differ] in legally important aspects from those types of injurie | 1 | 1 |
Mississippi Land Co. v. S & a PROPERTIES IIgreen1 sentence2003Opinion In Mississippi Land Co. v. S & A Properties II, Inc., 01-1623, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/02), 817 So.2d 1200, 1202-03 (citations omitted), we explained the purpose of an exception of no cause of action, as well as the standard for reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny one, as follows: Under La.Code Civ.P. art 927, a defendant may raise the peremptory exception of no right of action. | 1 | 1 |
Shepard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.green1 sentence1994For example, in Shepard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 545 So.2d 624, 629 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 550 So.2d 627 , 628 (La.1989), the fourth circuit held the tort victim's parents' consortium claim was derived from their son's injuries and therefore fell under the policy limit applicable to bodily injury to one person. | 1 | 1 |
Paddock v. Denniesgreen1 sentence1994See Paddock v. Dennies, 532 So.2d 855 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988) (wife was already a plaintiff when she added a late consortium claim); Louviere v. Hartford Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Sharff v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.green1 sentence1994Likewise, in Sharff v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., 584 So.2d 1223, 1226 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 589 So.2d 1055 (La.1991), the second circuit held a mother's consortium claim fell under the single person bodily injury limit and not the aggregate per accident limit because her consortium claim was "derivative" of her son's claim for bodily injury. | 1 | 1 |
| Leroy Michel, Jr. And Cindy Michel, Cross-Appellants v. Total Transportation, Inc. And Assuranceforeningen Gard, Cross-Appelleesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2006Co., 96-3028, p. 8 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 569, 574 . 2004Co., 96-3028, p. 2 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 569, 574 ." 740 So.2d at 1274 . | 3 | 1999–2006 |
Armand v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN
green
2 sentences2010In dismissing the son’s consortium claim, the Court held: [T]he consortium claim of the plaintiffs son was extinguished by the quantum awarded the plaintiff.... [I]n Armand v. State, Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 97-2958 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/23/99) , 729 So.2d 1085, 1094-95 , ... the First Circuit found that the cap includes any derivative claims that arise from the same act of malpractice. 2002As previously noted, in Annand v. State, Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 97 2958 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/23/99) , 729 So.2d 1085, 1094-1095 , writ denied, 99-0842 (La.5/14/99), 741 So.2d 661 , the First Circuit found that the cap includes any derivative claims that arise from the same act of malpractice. | 2 | 2002–2010 |
Theriot v. Damson Drilling Corp.
green
2 sentences1993Theriot v. Damson Drilling Corp., 471 So.2d 757 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 472 So.2d 907 (1985). 1986In Theriot v. Damson Drilling Corp., 471 So.2d 757 (La.App. 3d Cir.1985); writ denied, 472 So.2d 907 (La.1985), the court held that employer's immunity from tort liability extends to the loss of consortium claimed by the wife and children of an employee whose injury is compensable under the workman's compensation law. | 2 | 1986–1993 |
Theriot v. Damson Drilling Corp.
green
2 sentences1993Theriot v. Damson Drilling Corp., 471 So.2d 757 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 472 So.2d 907 (1985). 1986In Theriot v. Damson Drilling Corp., 471 So.2d 757 (La.App. 3d Cir.1985); writ denied, 472 So.2d 907 (La.1985), the court held that employer's immunity from tort liability extends to the loss of consortium claimed by the wife and children of an employee whose injury is compensable under the workman's compensation law. | 2 | 1986–1993 |
Lonthier v. Northwest Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2013Co., 497 So.2d 774 (La.App. 3 Cir.1986) (wherein a panel of this court discussed loss of love, companionship, and affection within the context of the element of “society” within a consortium claim). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Simpson v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT
green
1 sentence2011Spears, supra; Simpson v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 636 So.2d 608 (La.App. 1st Cir.1993), writs denied, 94-0042, 94-1005 (La.05/06/94), 637 So.2d 471 , 472. |aiThus, we must be careful to differentiate between that which is recoverable as an element of the consortium claim and that which is not recoverable absent the existence of a cause of action for individual mental distress under La.Civ.Code art. *555 2315.6 and the holding in Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hospital, 556 So.2d 559 (La.1990). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Simpson v. State Through DOTD
green
1 sentence2011Spears, supra; Simpson v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 636 So.2d 608 (La.App. 1st Cir.1993), writs denied, 94-0042, 94-1005 (La.05/06/94), 637 So.2d 471 , 472. |aiThus, we must be careful to differentiate between that which is recoverable as an element of the consortium claim and that which is not recoverable absent the existence of a cause of action for individual mental distress under La.Civ.Code art. *555 2315.6 and the holding in Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hospital, 556 So.2d 559 (La.1990). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hollingsworth v. Bowers
green
1 sentence2010In Hollingsworth v. Bowers, 96-257 57(La.App. 3 Cir. 12/30/96), 690 So.2d 825 , where the damages awarded a child injured during childbirth exceeded the medical cap, the mother’s derivative claim for loss of consortium was extinguished. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Coleman v. Deno
green
1 sentence2010Coleman, 99-2998 at p. 28, 832 So.2d at 1034 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners
green
1 sentence2004Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 03-0719, 03-0993, 03-1002 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 117 (" Landry I "). [2] In Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058, 1065-1066 (La.1992), we explained: The uniqueness of asbestosis cases and the difficulties of trying to fit such cases within the framework of concepts designed to handle traditional torts has been recognized: "`the factual predicate giving rise to potential liability from asbestos exposure is simply different from those that generated most tort doctrines ... [and thus such cases differ] in legally important aspects from those types of injurie | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
green
1 sentence2004Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 03-0719, 03-0993, 03-1002 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 117 (" Landry I "). [2] In Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058, 1065-1066 (La.1992), we explained: The uniqueness of asbestosis cases and the difficulties of trying to fit such cases within the framework of concepts designed to handle traditional torts has been recognized: "`the factual predicate giving rise to potential liability from asbestos exposure is simply different from those that generated most tort doctrines ... [and thus such cases differ] in legally important aspects from those types of injurie | 1 | 2004–2004 |
New Motor Vehicle Board of California v. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence2004Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 03-0719, 03-0993, 03-1002 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 117 (" Landry I "). [2] In Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058, 1065-1066 (La.1992), we explained: The uniqueness of asbestosis cases and the difficulties of trying to fit such cases within the framework of concepts designed to handle traditional torts has been recognized: "`the factual predicate giving rise to potential liability from asbestos exposure is simply different from those that generated most tort doctrines ... [and thus such cases differ] in legally important aspects from those types of injurie | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Julius Ducre v. The Executive Officers of Halter Marine, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 03-0719, 03-0993, 03-1002 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 117 (" Landry I "). [2] In Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058, 1065-1066 (La.1992), we explained: The uniqueness of asbestosis cases and the difficulties of trying to fit such cases within the framework of concepts designed to handle traditional torts has been recognized: "`the factual predicate giving rise to potential liability from asbestos exposure is simply different from those that generated most tort doctrines ... [and thus such cases differ] in legally important aspects from those types of injurie | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Lyford v. Schilling
green
1 sentence2004Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 03-0719, 03-0993, 03-1002 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 117 (" Landry I "). [2] In Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058, 1065-1066 (La.1992), we explained: The uniqueness of asbestosis cases and the difficulties of trying to fit such cases within the framework of concepts designed to handle traditional torts has been recognized: "`the factual predicate giving rise to potential liability from asbestos exposure is simply different from those that generated most tort doctrines ... [and thus such cases differ] in legally important aspects from those types of injurie | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Walls v. American Optical Corp.
green
1 sentence2004Co., 96-3028, p. 2 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 569, 574 ." 740 So.2d at 1274 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ducre v. Mine Safety Appliances
green
1 sentence2004Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 03-0719, 03-0993, 03-1002 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 117 (" Landry I "). [2] In Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058, 1065-1066 (La.1992), we explained: The uniqueness of asbestosis cases and the difficulties of trying to fit such cases within the framework of concepts designed to handle traditional torts has been recognized: "`the factual predicate giving rise to potential liability from asbestos exposure is simply different from those that generated most tort doctrines ... [and thus such cases differ] in legally important aspects from those types of injurie | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 03-0719, 03-0993, 03-1002 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 117 (" Landry I "). [2] In Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058, 1065-1066 (La.1992), we explained: The uniqueness of asbestosis cases and the difficulties of trying to fit such cases within the framework of concepts designed to handle traditional torts has been recognized: "`the factual predicate giving rise to potential liability from asbestos exposure is simply different from those that generated most tort doctrines ... [and thus such cases differ] in legally important aspects from those types of injurie | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Cooper v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2003Cooper v. Liberty Mutual Ins., Co., 96-1522, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/20/97), 699 So.2d 115, 120 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Douglas v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2002As previously noted, in Annand v. State, Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 97 2958 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/23/99) , 729 So.2d 1085, 1094-1095 , writ denied, 99-0842 (La.5/14/99), 741 So.2d 661 , the First Circuit found that the cap includes any derivative claims that arise from the same act of malpractice. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Humphrey
green
1 sentence1994For example, in Shepard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 545 So.2d 624, 629 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 550 So.2d 627 , 628 (La.1989), the fourth circuit held the tort victim's parents' consortium claim was derived from their son's injuries and therefore fell under the policy limit applicable to bodily injury to one person. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Sharff v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1994Likewise, in Sharff v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., 584 So.2d 1223, 1226 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 589 So.2d 1055 (La.1991), the second circuit held a mother's consortium claim fell under the single person bodily injury limit and not the aggregate per accident limit because her consortium claim was "derivative" of her son's claim for bodily injury. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Vilma Tablas Cruz v. Hendy International Co., and Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Crestar Mortgage Corp. v. Strahan neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage Dist. No. 2 green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Joseph v. Texaco, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.