DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Allstate Ins. Co. v. Theriot, 376 So. 2d 950.

68 citing documents.

  • Knight v. Samuel 447 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Hildebrand v. Schnell 441 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Louviere v. Shell Oil Co. 440 So. 2d 93 La. 1983
  • Hunter v. Johnson 434 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    The Johnsons however argue that the prescription running against their claim against the defendants was interrupted by the Hunters’
  • Ellenburg v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 434 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • 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 interrupte
  • Garrity v. Cazayoux 430 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    the Louisiana Supreme Court described the purpose of prescriptive statutes as follows: "The underlying reason why prescription does not bar the subsequent claim in these instances is that the defendant has adequate and timely notice by legal demand on behalf of indicated interests that liability arising out
  • Cullivan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 428 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    In support of this contention
  • Emp. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Dixon 425 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    4th Cir.1978) rev'd on other grounds, (La.
  • Deculus v. Augenstein Construction Co. 425 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    National Surety Corp. v. Standard Accident Ins.
  • STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. v. Farnsworth 425 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
  • Halvorsen v. Groendyke Transport, Inc. 422 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    as standing for the proposition that once a defendant is put on notice, prescription is interrupted as to all subsequent claims arising out of the same accident.
  • LaFargue v. St. Amant 433 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    632 (1936); Kreher v. T. L. James & Company, Inc., (La.App.
  • Travelers Insurance Co. v. Frederick Towing Co. 419 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • 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 f
  • Moraus v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 396 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    in overruling *599 DOTD's exception of prescription.
  • Clark v. McDonald's System, Inc. 383 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    where a suit brought by a workmen's compensation insurer, who was subsequently held to have no cause of action against the defendant tort-feasor, was held to have interrupted prescription as to the belatedly filed claim of the injured employee against the tort-feasor.
  • Brown & Root v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 381 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Co. v. Theriot, La.1979, , traces and explains the correct application of R.S.