Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Borel v. Young, 989 So. 2d 42.

125 citing documents.

Evan A. Cooper v. Stephen C. Poss, Amanda Stout, and McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
11/ 27/ 07), on reA HI 1111111lilll I 1131111111E111PRIA Ill 11 i ne year from the date of discovery of the alleged act, omission, or neglec
Harold Breaux, Sr. v. Terry B. Soileau La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
11/27/07), -9 (emphasis added), the supreme court reiterated its prior holdings emphasizing that: Peremption is a period of time fixed by law for the existence of a right, and unless timely exercised, the right is extinguished upon the expiration of the peremptive period.
The Rapides Parish School Board v. Zurich American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Gibson v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. No 2 275 So. 3d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
11/27/07), , 63, on reh'g (July 1, 2008) (emphasis added).
In re Med. Review Panel of Gerard Lindquist 274 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
11/27/07), , 74, on reh'g (7/1/08), examined this statutory language to determine whether the one and three-year time periods set forth are peremptive or prescriptive.
John Mantiply and Melissa Sue Mantiply v. Joseph I. Hoffman, Jr., M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
11/27/07, 23), on rehearing (July 1, 2008).
Mantiply v. Hoffman 263 So. 3d 1193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
11/27/07, 23), , on rehearing (July 1, 2008).
Matranga v. Parish Anesthesia of Jefferson, LLC 254 So. 3d 1238 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
11/27/07), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that "...
The Congregation of the Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic Church of the Parish of Calcasieu v. Sam Istre Construction, … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
11/27/07), reversed on rehearing on other grounds, (La.
Congregation of the Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic Church of the Parish of Calcasieu v. Sam Istre Constr., Inc. 253 So. 3d 196 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
11/27/07), , 49, reversed on rehearing on other grounds , (La.
Christopher Blanchard v. Demetrius J. Hicks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
11/27/07), reh’g granted, 07-419, (La.7/1/08)
Blanchard v. Hicks 244 So. 3d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/27/07), , reh'g granted , 07-419, (La.7/1/08), , 65.
Daniel P. McCauley v. Dr. Malcolm Stubbs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
11/27/07), (on rehearing), found that Category 4, known as the discovery rule, has no application to the three-year prescriptive period of La.R.S.
McCauley v. Stubbs 245 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/27/07), (on rehearing), found that Category 4, known as the discovery rule, has no application to the three-year prescriptive period of La.R.S.
In re Benoit 244 So. 3d 44 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2018
11/27/07), , on reh'g (07/01/08), and finds that Ms. Benoit's amended claim is not prescribed.
Harris v. Breaud 243 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/27/07), , 48 (on rehearing).
Quatrevingt v. State 242 So. 3d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/27/07), , 49 ; Pounds v. Schori , , 1198 (La.
Salemi v. TMR Exploration, Inc. 224 So. 3d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Hill v. TMR Exploration, Inc. 223 So. 3d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Shields v. Alvin R. Savoie & Associates, Inc. 214 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Lonny Hayes v. Viviana Trevino De Barton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
11/27/07), on reh’g (July 1, 2008) states, in pertinent part: A long line of jurisprudence holds that those who enact statutory provisions are presumed to act deliberately and with full knowledge of existing laws on the same subject, with awareness of court cases and well-established pr
Jimerson v. Majors 211 So. 3d 651 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
11/27/07), ; Holmes v. LSU/E. A. Conway Med.
Hamilton v. Burns 202 So. 3d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Duvio v. Specialty Pools Co. 216 So. 3d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Borel v. Young, 07-0419, p. 8 (La.11/27/07), .
Hebert v. Boesch 194 So. 3d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See Borel v. Young, 2007-0419 (La.11/27/07), .
Brian McCann v. Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
7/1/08), (on rehearing), dealt with the addition of parties after prescription had run and, therefore, the addition of those parties’ claims.
McCann v. Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital 192 So. 3d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Warren, , and Borel v. Young, 07-419 (La.11/27/07), (on rehearing), dealt with the addition of parties after prescription had run and, therefore, the addition of those parties’ claims.
In Re: Medical Review Panel Claim of Rose Tillman C/W in Re: The Medical Review Panel Claim of … La. 2016
11/27/07), (on rehearing); LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.
In Re: Medical Review Panel for the Claim of Peighton Miller v. Tulane Lakeside Hospital 187 So. 3d 445 La. 2016
11/27/07), (on rehearing); LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.
Correro v. Ferrer 188 So. 3d 316 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
However, “medical malpractice claims are governed by the specific provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act regarding suspension of prescription, to the exclusion of the general codal articles on interruption of prescription.” Borel v. Young, 2007-0419, p. 25 (La.11/27/07), .
MR Pittman Group, LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Government 182 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
“What a legislature says in the-text of the statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative-intent or will.” Id., citing Borel v. Young, 07-0419, p. 9 (La.11/27/07), .
Correro v. Caldwell 166 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
However, “the specific provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act regarding the suspension of prescription against joint tortfeasors apply to the exclusion of the general code article on interruption of prescription against joint tortfeasors[J” Borel v. Young, 2007-0419 (La.11/27/07), .
In Re: Medical Review Panel Claim of Don Clayton Wright, Et Ux. v. Christus Health Center Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
7/1/08), (on rehearing); LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.
Medical Review Panel Claim of Wright v. Christus Health Center Louisiana 157 So. 3d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Co., 07-0492 (La.6/26/09), (on rehearing) (citing Borel v. Young, 07-0419 (La.7/1/08), (on rehearing); LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), ).
Watkins v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 145 So. 3d 237 La. 2014
See also Borel v. Young, 07-0419 (La.11/27/07), .
Weber v. Metropolitan Community Hospice Foundation, Inc. 131 So. 3d 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Borel v. Young, 2007-0419 (La.7/1/08), .
Succession of Harrison 129 So. 3d 681 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
art. 3458; Borel v. Young, 2007-0419 (La.11/27/07), ; Thomas v. Roberts, 47,411 (La.App.2d Cir.9/26/12), .
Wells v. Webb 125 So. 3d 520 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
In Borel v. Young, 2007-0419 (La.7/1/08), (on rehearing), the supreme court held that both the one-year and three-year periods set forth in the statute are prescriptive.
Milbert v. Answering Bureau, Inc. 120 So. 3d 678 La. 2013
Dexcomm argues our interpretation of the statute conflicts with our holdings in LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98); and Borel v. Young, 2007-0419 (La.11/27/07); (on rehearing).
Soileau v. Smith True Value & Rental 144 So. 3d 771 La. 2013
See Borel v. Young, 2007-0419 (La.11/27/07), -63 (on rehearing).
Ward v. Vivian Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center 116 So. 3d 870 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Borel v. Young, 2007-0419 (La.11/27/07), .
Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State 118 So. 3d 1033 La. 2013
Co., 10-0703, p. 9 (La.1/28/11), , citing Borel v. Young, 07-0419 (La.11/27/07), , Pittman Construction Co. v. Housing Authority of Opelousas, 167 F.Supp.
Santiago v. Tulane University Hospital & Clinic 115 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Supreme Court has squarely addressed the precise issue raised by the plaintiff in two landmark medical malpractice eases: Borel v. Young, 07-0419 (La.11/27/07), , on reh’g, (7/1/08), 989 So.2d at 53-81 ; and Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins.
TIN, Inc. v. Washington Parish Sheriff's Office 112 So. 3d 197 La. 2013
As we have stated, when interpreting a statutory provision, we must presume that the Legislature acts deliberately and “when the Legislature changes the wording of a statute, it is presumed to have intended a change in the law.” Borel v. Young, 07-0419 (La.11/27/07), .
Beverly Lebouef v. Dr. Joseph O'Donnell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Thomas v. Roberts 106 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
art. 3458; Borel v. Young, 2007-0419 (La.11/27/07), .
Richards v. St. Bernard Parish Government 91 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“A long line of,jurisprudence holds that those who enact statutory provisions are presumed to act deliberately ]1sand with full knowledge of existing laws on the same subject, with awareness of court cases and well-established principles of statutory construction, with knowledge of the effect of their acts and a purpose in view.” Borel v. Young, 07-0419, pp. 7-8 (La.11/27/07), .
Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development v. Oilfield Heavy Haulers, L.L.C. 79 So. 3d 978 La. 2011
See, e.g., Borel v. Young, 07-0419, p. 10-11 (La.11/27/07); -59 (on reh’g).
Barcia v. Louisiana Medical Malpractice Insurance Co. 67 So. 3d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
A case which is most on point is Borel v. Young, 2007-0419 (La.11/27/07), .
Marenghi v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 62 So. 3d 847 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
See, Borel v. Young, 2007-419 (La.7/1/08), ; |9 (La.1986).