Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Martin v. Mud Supply Company, 119 So. 2d 484.

47 citing documents.

Albe v. City of New Orleans 150 So. 3d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Bellard v. LOUISIANA CORR. & IND. SCHOOL 647 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Taylor v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 579 So. 2d 443 La. 1991
Pickard v. Baugh, supra; Sam v. Sorrel Electrical Contractors, Inc., (La.App.
Rivard v. Petroleum Transport Co. 571 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
734 (1935); alt’d, , (1959); Coffey v. Ouachita River Lumber Co., 191 So.
Succession of Smith v. Kavanaugh, Pierson and Talley 565 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Wingate v. National Union Fire Ins.
Trujillo v. Boone 539 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
wherein the Court stated: "...
Richards v. LaCour 515 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
(1959), on rehearing, 239 La.
Ragsdale v. Sanders 488 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
(1960), wherein the court stated: “...
McNary v. Sidak 478 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
(1959), on rehearing, 239 La.
Bellamy v. Janssen 477 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Wingate v. National Union Fire Ins.
Ward v. Blache 466 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Martin v. Mud Supply Company, Inc., , (1960); (La.App.
Wingate v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 435 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Ray v. Alexandria Mall 434 So. 2d 1083 La. 1983
Bollinger v. Allstate Insurance Co. 433 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
1st Cir.1957); (Orl.La.App.1959), affirmed , (1959); Gisclair v. First Nat.
Wicker v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 418 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
Martin v. Mud Supply Co., Inc.
Bill Nolan Livestock, Inc. v. Simpson 402 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
(1959), on rehearing 1960; Jackson, supra .
Booker v. Piggly Wiggly Corp. 393 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Dean v. Hercules, Inc., , (1960).
Clark v. McDonald's System, Inc. 383 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
The supreme court in Majesty v. Comet, supra, , (1960), and discussed the Martin case in the opinion as follows: "Recognizing the principles embodied in Article 3550, [1] this Court in Martin v. Mud Supply Co., supra, in a case where no solidary obligation existed between the insured and its insurer, and where the insurer was not named as a defendan
Foster v. Hampton 372 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
There must also be reasonable diligence on the part of the plaintiff to ascertain the identity of the party injuring him and the means of knowledge are the same in effect as knowledge itself, Martin v. Mud Supply Company, Inc., , (1960).” (Emphasis added) The exception of prescription by the State of Louisiana was correctly maintained.
Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co. 364 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Act No. 39 of 1932.” , (1959), the Supreme Court said: “Our research has not revealed any jurisprudence which holds that knowledge alone of the filing of a suit against a closely associated person or company constitutes an interruption of prescription as to one not cited within a prescriptive period.
Morgan v. Epps 356 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Martin v. Mud Supply Co., Inc., , (1960).
Arceneaux v. Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. 341 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
There must also be reasonable diligence on the part of the plaintiff to ascertain the identity of the party injuring him and the means of knowledge are the same in effect as knowledge itself, Martin v. Mud Supply Company, Inc., , (1960)."
Dean v. Hercules Incorporated 328 So. 2d 69 La. 1976
Rollins International, Inc. v. Melder 323 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan, Martin v. Mud Supply Co., Inc.
Jackson v. Zito 314 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
of App. 5th Cir. 1963); , (1960); nor does it satisfy the criteria of Prather and Hyman , cited supra.
Patin v. Stockstill 315 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
There must also be reasonable diligence on the part of the plaintiff to ascertain the identity of the party injuring him and the means of knowledge are the same in effect as knowledge itself, Martin v. Mud Supply Company, Inc., , (1960).
Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 303 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
(1960); Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan
Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich. 296 So. 2d 271 La. 1974
Martin v. Mud Supply Co., Inc., , (1960); Bowerman v. Pacific Mutual Insurance Co., 212 La.
Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 281 So. 2d 724 La. 1973
9:5801; , (1960); Saxon v. Fireman's Insurance Co. of Newark, N.J., Franks v. City of Alexandria, 128
Cartwright v. Chrysler Corp. 232 So. 2d 285 La. 1970
Ayres v. New York Life Ins.
Cartwright v. Chrysler Corporation 232 So. 2d 285 La. 1970
[3] , ; Ayres v. New York Life Ins.
Fontenot v. Lucas 228 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Martin v. Mud Supply Co., 239 La., 616 , (1959); (La.
Dagenhart v. Robertson Truck Lines, Inc. 230 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
our Supreme Court sustained a plea of prescription when, by supplemental and amending petition filed more than a year after the accident, plaintiffs had attempted to join as a co-defendant the insurer of the defendant.
Brady v. Bernard 230 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Saxon v. Fireman's Insurance Co. of Newark, NJ 224 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
simply held that suit against an employer did not interrupt prescription and save a late suit against the liability insurer of an employee, where the timelysued employer was not solidarily liable with the employee (who committed a tort, but while not engaged in the vehicle-owner's business).
Ward v. Aucoin 222 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
[4] See Martin v. Mud Supply Company, Inc., , (1960)
Cartwright v. Chrysler Corp. 219 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Hill v. Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital 200 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
[3] (1964); Martin v. Mud Supply Co., Inc., La.App., (1959); , (1960).
Labruzza v. Boston Insurance Company 198 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
Moreover, the instant case is analogous to Martin v. Mud Supply Company, Inc., , , in which an employee was driving an automobile owned by his employer.
Penn v. Inferno Manufacturing Corporation 199 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
The best view is that taken in Martin v. Mud Supply Co. [ ], 119 So.2d., 484.
Jacobs v. Harmon 197 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
Bowerman v. Pacific Mut.
Burch v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 172 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Orleans, 1959, , affirmed 1960, , .
Stewart v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc. 147 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
PER CURIAM DENYING APPLICATION FOR REHEARING In a very forceful application for rehearing, the defendant, Maloney Carloading, Inc., argues that our decision "flies in the teeth of" , 119 So.
Brooks v. Wiltz 144 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
On the other hand, , , wherein Justice Hamlin, as the organ of the Court on rehearing, reviewed the many cases dealing with erroneous and improper citation and reached the conclusion that the defendant had not been cited and that the filing of the suit against the Mud Company was not sufficient to interrupt prescription as
Borey v. Rood 140 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Ensminger v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. 134 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Martin v. Mud Supply Company, Inc., La.App.Orleans, 1959, , affirmed 1960, , .
Hidalgo v. Dupuy 122 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
(Martin v. Mud Supply Co., La., , so heavily relied upon by the appellant is not apposite: it simply held that a suit against an employer alone on a cause of action based upon its vicarious liability for the tort of an alleged employee, where it was held that the employer was not responsible for the alleged employee's tort, did not interrupt prescri