Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lake Providence Equipment Co. v. Tallulah Production Credit Ass'n, 241 So. 2d 506.

32 citing documents.

Bayou Construction Group, LLC v. City of New Orleans, Tktmj, Incorporated, Cp Grace & Associates, Incorporated, Travelers Casualty … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
The Bank of New York Mellon Fka the Bank of New York, as Trustee v. Michael E. Oldemeyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Credit Ass’n, (1970); Chinn v. Mitchell, 98-1060 (La.App.
Bethley v. Simmons 201 So. 3d 304 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Credit Ass’n, , (1970); Jackson v. Hicks, supra.
Autovest, L.L.C. v. Nash 197 So. 3d 258 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Board of Supervisors v. Guth 195 So. 3d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Titus v. IHOP RESTAURANT, INC. 25 So. 3d 761 La. 2009
Glenn M. Hebert v. J. Elise Shelton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
See Lake Providence Equipment Co. v. Tallulah Production Credit Ass’n, So.2d 506 (1970).
Hebert v. Shelton 11 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See Lake Providence Equip *1205 ment Co. v. Tallulah Production Credit Ass’n, , (1970).
GOOD ACRES, INC. v. Jemison 8 So. 3d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Babin v. Babin 10 So. 3d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Lake Providence Equipment Company, Inc. v. Tallulah Production Credit Ass’n, , 241 * (1970).
Reed v. Mid-States Wood Preservers, Inc. 999 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Mallett v. McNeal 939 So. 2d 1254 La. 2006
Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Co. v. Eckert 656 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. 601 So. 2d 1355 La. 1992
Landreneau v. Duplechin 595 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
at 509 (1970); Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. on rehearing.
Lima v. Schmidt 595 So. 2d 624 La. 1992
Based on our review, we confirmed that an acknowledgment is subject to no particular formality, with one caveat discussed below, , (1970), that acknowledgment sufficient to interrupt prescription may be made verbally, in writing, by partial payment, by payment of interest or by pledge, or in other ways; or it may be implicit or inferred from the facts and circumstances.
Bahr v. Wood 507 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
[ ], ” The general rule regarding the burden of proof in such matters is that when the plaintiff’s petition shows on its face that the prescriptive period has run, and the plaintiff is contending that there was a suspension or interruption of prescription, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove
Wegman v. Central Transmission, Inc. 499 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Assoc., , (1970); (La.App.
Deville v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Ins. Co. 492 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Odessa House v. Goss 453 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
White v. Miller 447 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Brumfield v. Martin 428 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Boudreaux v. Trapp 420 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Chauser v. Babin 412 So. 2d 1005 La. 1982
Emery v. Cabral 400 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Richardson v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU, ETC. 393 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
(1970); Comment, Interruption of Prescription by Acknowledgment in Louisiana, 14 Tul.L.Rev.
Flowers v. US Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 381 So. 2d 378 La. 1980
Tassin v. Allstate Insurance Company 310 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
430 (1940) , , it is said that an acknowledgment sufficient to interrupt prescription must be a clear, concise and express recognition of the right which the creditor claims.
Brugman v. Prejean 288 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, , (1970).
Hilman v. Succession of Merrett 291 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 281 So. 2d 724 La. 1973
(1970); Landry v. Guidry, 210 La.
First National Bank of Shreveport v. Querbes 253 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Defendant has cited the case of Lake Providence Equipment Co. v. Tallulah Production Credit Association (1970), , , as authority for his contention that where a note is prescribed on its face the burden of proof that prescription has been interrupted rests on the creditor and proof must be clear and positive.