Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Flowers, Inc. v. Rausch, 364 So. 2d 928.

42 citing documents.

City of Shreveport v. CDM Smith, Inc. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
Lawrence Steven Mopsik v. Kristina Angelina Galjour La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Barkerding v. Whittaker 263 So. 3d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
(citing Flowers, Inc. v. Rausch , , 931 (La.
City of Youngsville v. C. H. Fenstermaker & Assocs., L.L.C. 244 So. 3d 508 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Flowers, Inc. v. Rausch , , 931 (La.1978) ; see also La.
City of Youngsville v. C. H. Fenstermaker & Associates, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Kathryn Elizabeth Holland v. Paul Scott Holland La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State ex rel. Caldwell v. Fournier Industrie et Sante & Laboratories Fournier, S.A. 208 So. 3d 1081 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
MR Pittman Group, LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Government 182 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Quantum Resources Management, L.L.C. v. Pirate Lake Oil Corp. 170 So. 3d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Reggio v. Reggio 166 So. 3d 290 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
Boes Iron Works, Inc. v. M.D. Descant, Inc. 154 So. 3d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Straub v. Richardson 92 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Southern Insurance Co. v. Metal Depot 70 So. 3d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Suhren v. Gibert 55 So. 3d 941 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Harding v. Raising Canes USA L.L.C. 55 So. 3d 837 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
Lee v. Professional Const. Services, Inc., supra, citing Flowers
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. 16 So. 3d 1065 La. 2009
Wooley v. Lucksinger 14 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
[[Image here]] Recently, in Flowers, Inc. v. Rausch, La., (1978) we held that peremption is but a form, or species of prescription possessing the differentiating characteristic that peremption does not admit of interruption or suspension.
Lee v. PROFESSIONAL CONST. SERVICES, INC. 982 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Conerly v. State 858 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Dauterive Contractors, Inc. v. Landry and Watkins 811 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Flowers, Coffey v. Block, 99-1221 (La.App.
Huffman v. Goodman 784 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Coffey v. Block 762 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
McCoy v. City of Monroe 747 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Followed St. Charles Mortgage & Loan, Inc. v. Oubre 701 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
Cf. Flowers, (a case in which the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment ordering the cancellation and erasure of tax assessments which had not been timely rein-scribed).
Guichard Drilling Co. v. Alpine Energy Serv., Inc. 657 So. 2d 1307 La. 1995
See Flowers, (quoting Succession of Pizzillo, 223 La.
Mills v. Mills 626 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
See also Pounds v. Schori, supra ; Farrell v. Farrell, supra ; Comment, Legal Rights and the Passage of Time, 41 La.L.Rev.
Preferred Inv. Corp. v. Neucere 592 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
In Flowers, the Supreme Court defined peremption as a form of prescription that does not admit of suspension or interruption.
Ritchie v. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORR. 595 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Flowers, , 931 n. 1 (La.1978) (citing 28 G. Baudry-Lacantinerie & A. Tissier, Traite Theorique et Pratique de Droit Civil §§ 38-39 (La.St.L.Inst.trans.
Bunge Corp. v. Gatx Corp. 557 So. 2d 1376 La. 1990
Farrell v. Farrell 555 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Loop, Inc. v. Collector of Revenue 504 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Notwithstanding differences, peremption is “but a form of prescription.” Flowers
Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hosp. 486 So. 2d 717 La. 1986
Flowers, , 931 n. 1 (La.1978) (citing 28 G. Baudry-Lacantinerie & A. Tissier, Traite Theorique et Pratique de Droit Civil §§ 38-39 (La.St.
Portal Boat Co. v. Stephens 485 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Griffin v. SUCCESSION OF BRANCH EX REL. SMITH 480 So. 2d 313 La. 1986
Nepveaux v. Fitzgerald 480 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Flowers, and Pounds v. Schori, supra.
Schulin v. Service Painting Co. of Louisiana 479 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Flowers, Guillory v. Avoyelles Railway Co., 104 La.
Todd v. State Through Dept. of Natural Res. 456 So. 2d 1340 La. 1984
we determined that "peremption, but a form of prescription, does `not run against the state in any civil matter, unless otherwise provided in the constitution or expressly by law.'
Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center 453 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Flowers, Pounds, supra .
Chalstrom v. Desselles on Behalf of Desselles 433 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
with the characteristic that it does not admit of interruption or suspension...," Flowers
Kennedy v. Powell 401 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Pounds v. Schori 377 So. 2d 1195 La. 1979
Recently, in Flowers, Inc. v. Rausch, La., (1978), we held that peremption is but a form or species of prescription possessing the differentiating characteristic that peremption does not admit of interruption or suspension.
Pounds v. Schori 369 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
v. Rausch, that “peremption is a common law term which has crept into our jurisprudence (and) its counterpart in the civil law is really ‘forfeiture.’ ’’

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by