Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brown v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, 142 So. 2d 796.

20 citing documents.

Elevating Boats, Inc. v. St. Bernard Parish 795 So. 2d 1153 La. 2001
Hendrick v. STONE, PIGMAN, WALTHER, ETC. 677 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
(1962), the court stated that "[a]lthough the injured party's right and the joint tortfeasors' obligations to the injured party arise at the same time, the right of one joint tortfeasor to contribution from the other does not arise until after judicial demand is made on one of the solidarily obligated
John v. Louisiana Sheriff's Risk Management Fund 647 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
(1962); Champagne v. Hartford, 607 So.2d at 752 ; Tarver v. Eckstein Marine Service, Inc., 633 So.2d at 764 ; Nelson v. Continental Casualty Co. 412 So.2d at 701 ; Blewer v. Continental, 394 So.2d at 842 ; Davis v. United Fruit *371 Co., 120 So.2d at 273 .
Cole v. Celotex Corp. 599 So. 2d 1058 La. 1992
[32] Relying upon this Court's holding *1069 , (1962), they argue, supported by the district court, [33] that the defendants' contribution claims came into existence not at the time of the tort, but at the time of plaintiffs' judicial demand, and as plaintiffs' judicial demand was made years after Act 431's effective date, comparative fault law app
Cole v. Celotex Corp. 588 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Plaintiffs argue Lebleu should not be applied retroactively because it changed established jurisprudence, , (1962).
Lebleu v. Southern Silica of Louisiana 554 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
(1962), the Ducre court found that the third-party plaintiffs' causes of action for contribution against a joint tortfeasor arise when judicial demand is made on a joint *856 tortfeasor.
Kozlowski v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HHR 534 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
CAJUN ELEC. POWER CO-OP., INC. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. 528 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
(1962) the Louisiana Supreme Court considered a similar issue to the case at bar when it determined the effective date of a change in the law relative to a contribution claim on the part of a joint tortfeasor.
McGrew v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
As stated in Daniels v. Conn et al., supra: " , (1962), this Court stated that although *1283 the injured party's cause of action against either or both of two joint tortfeasors comes into being and the obligation of each tortfeasor to the injured party commences at the time a tort is committed, the rights and obligations as between the joint tortfe
Daniels v. Conn 382 So. 2d 945 La. 1980
(1962), this Court stated that although the injured party's cause of action against either or both of two joint tortfeasors comes into being and the obligation of each tortfeasor to the injured party commences at the time a tort is committed, the rights and obligations as between the joint tortfeasors
Ferguson v. Lankford 374 So. 2d 1205 La. 1979
*1208 , (1962); Lanier v. T. L. James & Co., (La.App.
Morris v. Kospelich 206 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
Vidrine v. General Fire and Casualty Company 168 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
[2] Since the third-party demand herein was filed some three months after the original defendant (the third-party plaintiff) was first sued, or well within any prescriptive period applicable, we must overrule the third party plaintiffs' plea of prescription.
Jarrell v. Gordy 162 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Co., , , and actually the general rule is that the right to contribution does not arise, nor does prescription commence against it, until after one of the joint obligors has paid more than his share of the common obligation.
Emmons v. Agricultural Insurance Company 158 So. 2d 594 La. 1963
The above case crystallized temporarily jhe jurisprudence of this State with respect to the matter involved, Cf., Waggonner v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., ; however, on January 1, 1961, Act 30 of 1960, Article 2103, LSA-R.C.C., supra, became effective ( , ), and interpretations were demanded thereunder.
Cuccia v. Pratt Farnsworth, Inc. 155 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Breaux v. Texas and Pacific Railway Company, Incorporated, La.App., .
Caruso v. Newark Insurance 150 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
and held that the date of judicial demand was controlling as to appellants’ right to demand and obtain contribution.
Breaux v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. 147 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
We refer, of course, , .
Lanier v. TL James & Company 148 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Lowery v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 146 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
The identical issue presented by this appeal has been considered and deter *233 , .