DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Campo v. Correa, 828 So. 2d 502.

316 citing documents.

  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Forrestier 112 So. 3d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, p. 7 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Dingler v. Heart Clinic of Louisiana 113 So. 3d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), -11 (citations omitted.)
  • Davidson v. Glenwood Resolution Authority, Inc. 108 So. 3d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707 (La.6/21/02), ; (La.App.
  • Beverly Lebouef v. Dr. Joseph O'Donnell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    6/21/02), -11: Prescription commences when a plaintiff obtains actual or constructive knowledge of facts indicating to a reasonable person that he or she is the victim of a tort.
  • LeBouef v. O'Donnell 106 So. 3d 1160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    The jurisprudence states that “[prescription in a medical malpractice action commences when a plaintiff obtains actual or constructive knowledge of facts indicating to a reasonable person that he or she is the victim of a tort.” Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, pp. 11-12 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Nolan J. Benson, Sr. v. Abc Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Benson v. ABC Insurance Co. 106 So. 3d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Woods v. Cousins 102 So. 3d 977 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Huddleston v. Huddleston 106 So. 3d 567 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707 (La.6/21/02), ; Martinez Management, Inc. v. Ca-ston, 39,500 (La.App.2d Cir.4/13/05), .
  • Green Trails, LLC v. Stewart Title of Louisiana, Inc. 111 So. 3d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707 (La.6/21/02), -511 ; C’s Discount Pharmacy, Inc. v. Pacific Insurance Co., 09-217 (La.App.5th Cir. 1/26/10), .
  • In re Medical Review Proceedings of DeBram 102 So. 3d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    See Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, p. 9 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Barber v. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau 97 So. 3d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 102 So. 3d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, pp. 11-12 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Ames v. Ohle 97 So. 3d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    12/14/11), , writ denied, 12-0124, (La.3/23/12), (citing Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707, (La.6/21/02), ).
  • Scranton v. Ashley Ann Energy, L.L.C. 91 So. 3d 1174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Co., 07-1384 (La.02/01/08), ; Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.06/21/02), .
  • Boudreaux v. Parnell 96 So. 3d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707, pp. 14-15 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Wells v. Zadeck 89 So. 3d 1145 La. 2012
    “[T]he ultimate issue in determining whether a plaintiff had constructive knowledge sufficient to commence a prescriptive period is the reasonableness of the plaintiffs action or inaction in light of his education, intelligence, and the nature of the defendant’s conduct.” Marin , 09-2368, p. 15 (La.10/19/10), 48 So.3d at 246 , citing Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Watters v. Department of Social Services 102 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Under the doctrine of contra non valentem, prescription “commences when the plaintiff obtains actual or constructive knowledge of facts indicating to a reasonable person that he or she is the victim of a tort.” Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, pp. 11-12 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Jenkins v. Starns 85 So. 3d 612 La. 2012
    Citing Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, pp. 11-12 (La.6/21/02); .
  • Barbe v. American Sugar Refining, Inc. 83 So. 3d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707, pp. 11-12 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Marvin W. Buxton v. William Corbello La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    6/21/02), (citations omitted).
  • Buxton v. Corbello 82 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    However, if prescription is evident on the face of the pleadings, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the action has not prescribed.” Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, p. 7 (La.6/21/02), (citations omitted).
  • Rita Patin v. State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Patin v. State 74 So. 3d 1234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    9:5628(A) “sets forth two prescriptive limits within which to bring a medical malpractice action, namely one year from the date of the alleged act or one year from the date of discovery with a three year limitation from the date of the alleged act, omission or neglect to bring such claims.” Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, p. 9 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Hines v. BROWNING-FERRIS, INC. 73 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.06/21/02), .
  • Oracle Oil, LLC v. EPI Consultants 77 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707, p. 12 (La.6/21/02), -511 ; Lawrence v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., 2010-0849, pp. 9-10 (La.App.
  • McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital 65 So. 3d 1218 La. 2011
    cause the evidence concerning the issue before us was fully developed at trial and considering the passage of time, “we now exercise our appellate jurisdiction of both law and fact in civil matters in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency and review the jury’s verdict for manifest error.” Wooley , | 09-0571 at p. 68, ; see also Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, p. 11 (La.6/21/02), ; see also, La.
  • Amos v. Crouch 71 So. 3d 1053 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.06/21/02), ; Davis v. Johnson, 45,200 (La.App.2d Cir.05/05/10), .
  • Becker v. Murphy Oil Corp. 70 So. 3d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707, p. 7 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Barcia v. Louisiana Medical Malpractice Insurance Co. 67 So. 3d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The Barcias cite Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707, p. 12 (La.6/21/02); ().
  • Judy Lyons v. Ann Knight La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, p. 7 (La.6/21/02)
  • Lyons v. Knight 65 So. 3d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, p. 7 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Wells v. Zadeck 62 So. 3d 861 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), ; Alexander v. Fulco, 39,293 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/05), , writ denied, 05-0781 (La.5/6/05), .
  • Wooley v. Lucksinger 61 So. 3d 507 La. 2011
    Const. art. 5, § 5(C); Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707 p. 11 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Blake v. Maley 57 So. 3d 1122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), ; Holmes v. LSU/E.A.
  • Kirk Richard v. Kimberly Babin Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, p.7 (La.6/21/02)
  • Barnett v. Barnett 56 So. 3d 1044 La. 2010
    Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Kenneth James Mouton v. Hebert's Superette, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Mouton v. Hebert's Superette, Inc. 53 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Lawrence v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital 48 So. 3d 1281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    See Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707, p. 9 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 48 So. 3d 234 La. 2010
    Campo v. Conea, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), -11 (cites omitted).
  • Ferrara v. Starmed Staffing, LP 50 So. 3d 861 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Civil Code art. 3492, [but also] it embodies the discovery rule delineated as the fourth category of contra non valentón.” Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, p. 9 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Guillot v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. 50 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707, pp. 11-12 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc. 45 So. 3d 991 La. 2010
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, p. 12 (La.6/21/02), -511 .
  • Hammond ex rel. Estate of Tillman v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc. 38 So. 3d 1270 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    1986); Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Bosarge v. DePaul/Tulane Behavioral Health Center 39 So. 3d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    See Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, pp. 9-10 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Davis v. Johnson 36 So. 3d 439 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    In Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, pp. 11-12 (La.6/21/02), -11 , the supreme court explained the importance of the reasonableness of a plaintiffs action or inaction in determining whether the date of discovery interrupted prescription under La.
  • Doe v. DELTA WOMEN'S CLINIC OF BATON ROUGE 37 So. 3d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), .
  • Explained Williamson v. Hebert 31 So. 3d 1047 La. 2010
    In Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), , we explained “a plaintiffs mere apprehension that something may be wrong is insufficient to commence the running of prescription, unless the plaintiff knew or should have known through the exercise of reasonable diligence that his problem may have been caused by acts of malpractice.” Plaintiff in the instant ca
  • CEASOR v. State 30 So. 3d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010