Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp.
La.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2024Law Industries, LLC v. State of Louisiana, Department of Education, Recovery School District and Advanced Environmental Consulting, Inc. La.
- 2024Nautilus Insurance Co v. Cavazos W.D. La.
- 2024Morris v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co W.D. La.
- 2024Hospital Service District No. 1 of Terrebonne Parish v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company E.D. La.
- 2024Gruver v. Allstate Insurance 5th Cir.
- 2024Hargiss v. Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Co W.D. La.
- 2023Laurie B. Hebert, Individually and Kevin Hebert, Individually and on behalf of his minor son, Robert Seth Hebert v. Louisiana State University System Board of Supervisors through Louisiana State University and Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut La. Ct. App.
- 2023Varile Rae Ann Pitre Tucker v. Cecilia Chatfield and Homesite Insurance Company La. Ct. App.
- 2022Talamo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company M.D. La.
- 2022St. Tammany Parish Hospital Service District No. 2 v. Zurich American Insurance Company E.D. La.
Cites 1 case
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Phyllis Kay Roby DOERR, et al. v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, et al.
ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Rehearing granted for the sole purposes of correcting a misstatement of fact and clarifying the decree which are the only issues raised by the rehearing applicant, Genesis Insurance Company.
First, on the consent of all the parties, the sentence at the top of page 3: “This exclusion was not part of the original policy, but was adopted and placed in the policy on February 27,1996.” is changed to read as follows: “This exclusion was part of the original policy, but was not countersigned by the parties until February 27, 1996.” This change does not affect the reasoning or holding of the original opinion.
Second, in this case, only St. Bernard Parish sought review by this court of the judgement of the court of appeal that dismissed the principal demand against Genesis by the plaintiffs and the cross-claim by the Parish. “[Wjhere certiorari is granted on the application of one party to a suit, the judgment (decree) cannot be amended or changed to the benefit of other parties who have failed to apply for such review.” Jordan v. Travelers Ins. Co., 257 La. 995, 1001, 245 So.2d 151, 153 (1971) (collecting authorities). Thus, the decree is revised to read as follows: “For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the court of appeal dismissing St. Bernard Parish’s cross claim against Genesis Insurance Company is reversed, and the district court’s ruling denying Genesis’s Motion for Summary Judgment against the Parish is reinstated. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”