Home/Louisiana Court of Appeal/Miceli v. American Tobacco Co.

Miceli v. American Tobacco Co.

691 So. 2d 290, 96 La.App. 1 Cir. 1135, 1997 La. App. LEXIS 858, 1997 WL 158125
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 27, 1997
DocketNo. 96 CA 1135
StatusPublished

This text of 691 So. 2d 290 (Miceli v. American Tobacco Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miceli v. American Tobacco Co., 691 So. 2d 290, 96 La.App. 1 Cir. 1135, 1997 La. App. LEXIS 858, 1997 WL 158125 (La. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

LOTTINGER, Chief Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Mary Ruth Ford Miceli v. Armstrong World Industries; Celotex Corporation; Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.; Keene Corporation; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation; Owens-Illinois, Inc; Pittsburgh Corning Corporation; Rockwool Manufacturing Company; GAF Corporation; American Tobacco Company; Lorillard, Inc. and Liggett Group, Inc., No. 96 CA 1134, 691 So.2d 283, decided this date, the summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of defendants is hereby reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against defendants. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miceli v. Armstrong World Industries
691 So. 2d 283 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
691 So. 2d 290, 96 La.App. 1 Cir. 1135, 1997 La. App. LEXIS 858, 1997 WL 158125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miceli-v-american-tobacco-co-lactapp-1997.