DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., 276 So. 2d 262.

48 citing documents.

  • Randall Kling v. Troy Hebert Ernest P. Legier, Jr., in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of the … La. 2024
    The essence of interruption of prescription by suit is notice to the defendant of the legal proceedings based on the claim involved.5 Nini v. Sanford Bros., Inc., -65 (La.
  • Thompson v. Town of Jonesboro 222 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    1991); Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., (La.
  • Brian McCann v. Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    “[T]he elemental basis of legal interruption of liberative prescription in tort suits is informing the defendant of the legal demand.” Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc.
  • McCann v. Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital 192 So. 3d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    “[T]he elemental basis of legal interruption of liberative prescription in tort suits is informing the defendant of the' legal demand.” Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc.
  • Winn-Dixie v. Physicians Surgical Specialty Hospital 136 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • Major Patrick Calbert v. Orlando J. Batiste La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    Ctr., Div. of Hosps., Nini v. Sanford Bros., Inc.
  • Calbert v. Batiste 109 So. 3d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Ctr., Div. of Hosps., Nini v. Sanford Bros., Inc.
  • Kevin v. City of Oberlin 60 So. 3d 1205 La. 2011
    [Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., ]; James and Hazard, Civil Procedure, Section 5.7 (2d ed.1977); Comment, Developments in the Law: Statutes of Limitation, 63 Harv.L.Rev.
  • Vaughn v. City of Baton Rouge 39 So. 3d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Co., (citing Nini v. Sanford Bros., Inc., ).
  • Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 21 So. 3d 186 La. 2009
    rehearing denied 1979; Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., Tate, Amendment of Pleadings in Louisiana, 43 Tul.
  • In Re Med. Malprac. Claims Regard. Diecidue 972 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., Flower v. O'Connor, 17 La.
  • Chailland Business Consultants v. Duplantis 897 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc.
  • Succession of Daigle 822 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc.
  • Baham v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans 792 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Nini v. Sanford Bros., Inc.
  • Smith v. Cutter Biological 770 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    In Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., (La.
  • Smith v. Arcadian Corp. 753 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc.
  • In Re Succession of Tompkins 747 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Nini v. Sanford Bros., Inc.
  • Gaines v. Bruscato 712 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., (La.
  • Moore v. Gencorp, Inc. 633 So. 2d 1268 La. 1994
    Id., citing Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., Allstate Ins.
  • Robicheaux v. Lafayette OB/GYN Clinic 607 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    See Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., and the Comment at 41 La.L.Rev.
  • Montiville v. City of Westwego 592 So. 2d 390 La. 1992
    Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., (La.
  • Parker v. Southern American Ins. Co. 590 So. 2d 55 La. 1991
    Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc.
  • Parker v. Southern American Ins. Co. 578 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    For the claim of interruption of prescription by suit against a and Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc.
  • Rusher v. Winningham Nissan Volvo, Inc. 550 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    App. 1st Cir.1972), aff'd (La.
  • Sam v. Sorrel Electrical Contractors, Inc. 525 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    In Mm v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., our supreme court held that a suit filed on behalf of a plaintiff who had died prior to the actual filing of the suit interrupted prescription.
  • Bertrand v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 491 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Co. v. *479 Theriot, rehearing denied 1979; Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., Tate, Amendment of Pleadings in Louisiana, 43 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals 475 So. 2d 1040 La. 1985
    rehearing denied 1979; Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., Tate, Amendment of Pleadings in Louisiana, 43 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Giroir v. SOUTH LA. MEDICAL CTR., ETC. 475 So. 2d 1040 La. 1985
    rehearing denied 1979; Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., Tate, Amendment of Pleadings in Louisiana, 43 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Bellamy v. Garber Bros., Inc. 472 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., (La.
  • Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center 453 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    rehearing denied 1979, and Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., rehearing denied 1973.
  • Jones v. Philco-Ford Corp. 452 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc.
  • Jones v. Philco-Ford Corp. 441 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    It is well established in Louisiana jurisprudence that “the elemental basis of legal interruption of liberative prescription in tort suits is informing the defendant of the legal demand.” Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc.
  • Louviere v. Shell Oil Co. 440 So. 2d 93 La. 1983
    See also Nini v. Sanford Bros., Inc., a workmen's compensation case in which suit was filed within one year of the last compensation payment.
  • Chenier v. Vanguard Party Sales, Inc. 430 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    the Supreme Court quoted from Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., as follows: "When the defendant knows or should know, prior to the expiration of the prescriptive period, that legal demands are made upon him from the occurrence described in the petition filed, prescription is interrupted."
  • STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. v. Farnsworth 425 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    As we stated in Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., : `When the defendant knows or should know, prior to the expiration of the prescriptive period, that legal demands are made upon him from the occurrence described in the petition filed, prescription is interrupted.'
  • Lee v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 400 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    At a later time, the Supreme Court, quoted from Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., as follows: “When the defendant knows or should know, prior to the expiration of the prescriptive period, that legal demands are made upon him from the occurrence described in the petition filed, prescription is interrupted.” And then, in further elaboration as to the basis for a line of cited jurisprudence
  • Lester v. Rebel Crane and Service Co. 393 So. 2d 674 La. 1981
    See Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., and the Comment at 41 La.L.Rev.
  • Clark v. McDonald's System, Inc. 383 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    See Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., where a suit brought by an erroneously named deceased person was held to have interrupted prescription as to the claim of the correct plaintiff.
  • Guidry v. Theriot 377 So. 2d 319 La. 1979
    Allstate went further and held that where a defendant knows or should know, prior to expiration of a prescriptive period, that legal demands are made on him from the occurrence described in the petition, prescription is interrupted, citing Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., (La.
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Theriot 376 So. 2d 950 La. 1979
    As we stated in Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., : "When the defendant knows or should know, prior to the expiration of the prescriptive period, that legal demands are made upon him from the occurrence described in the petition filed, prescription is interrupted."
  • Gradney v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 375 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., Lushete v. Diesi, supra.
  • Peters v. Sentry Insurance 375 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc.
  • Meadoux v. Hall 369 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
  • Gulf Building Services, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 365 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Substitution has been allowed in a petition filed in the name of a dead man, in Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., La.1973, , which noted that the more basic question is, ordinarily, whether prescription is interrupted by the original petition.
  • Dalby v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 365 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Our Supreme Court stated in Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., at pp. 264-265 (La.1973): "In Louisiana, the essence of interruption of prescription by suit has been notice to the defendant of the legal proceeding based on the claim involved."
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Louisiana Gas Serv. Co. 344 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    [1] In Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., the court said: "In Louisiana, the essence of interruption of prescription by suit has been notice to the defendant of the legal proceedings based on the claim involved.
  • Lushute v. Diesi 343 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    *1136 In considering the quoted provision the Supreme Court in Nini v. Sanford Brothers, Inc., stated that "the essence of interruption of prescription by suit has been notice to the defendant of the legal proceedings based on the claim involved.
  • Conner v. Continental Southern Lines, Incorporated 294 So. 2d 485 La. 1974
    (1973), we said: "When the defendant knows or should know, prior to the expiration of the prescriptive period, that legal demands are made upon him from the occurrence described in the petition filed, prescription is interrupted.