KENNETH E. FORD, GILBERT V. ANDRY, WILLIAM FERNANDEZ, JAMES LICCIARDI, SR., JAMES LICCIARDI, JR. Vs. MURPHY OIL, U.S.A., INC.; J. T. CAMBRE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS PLANT MANAGER FOR MURPHY OIL, U.S.A., MERAUX PLANT; R. E. HUTSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER FOR MURPHY OIL, U.S.A., INC., MERAUX PLANT, ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
KENNETH E. FORD, GILBERT V. ANDRY, WILLIAM FERNANDEZ, JAMES LICCIARDI, SR., JAMES LICCIARDI, JR. * NO. 2000-CA-0772 * COURT OF APPEAL * FOURTH CIRCUIT VERSUS * STATE OF LOUISIANA MURPHY OIL, U.S.A., INC.; J. T. CAMBRE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS PLANT MANAGER FOR MURPHY OIL, U.S.A., MERAUX PLANT; R. E. HUTSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER FOR MURPHY OIL, U.S.A., INC., MERAUX PLANT, ET AL. * * ******* ARMSTRONG, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS I respectfully concur with the result reached. The Supreme Court stated that its “decertification will not keep these plaintiffs out of court as individual actions, consolidated actions, or perhaps a more limited class action are still available” (emphasis added). On rehearing, the Supreme Court did not eliminate the option of a more limited class action. The plaintiffs have amended to bring a more limited class action by reducing the class of plaintiffs, by reducing the number of defendants to one and by reducing the scope of the claims. Also, the Supreme Court stated that “a ‘common cause’ does not necessarily have to be a single incident or disaster”.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
