Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, 375 So. 2d 1319.

201 citing documents.

Keith Bossier v. Haza Foods Of Louisiana, Llc, Diamond Land Company, Llc, The Wendy's Company, Abc Insurance Company, … La. 2025
Citing Corsey v. State, Through Dep ’t of Corrections, (La.
Latasha T. Sherman v. Terri Anderson-Scott Bar 14889 and Legal Aid of North Louisiana (A Division of Acadiana … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
She contends that prescription does not run against a person unable to bring suit, (La.
In Re: Medical Review Proceedings Of Denielle Poree La. 2025
1/19/05), ; Corsey v. State, through Dept. of Corrections , (La.
Marion D. Jones v. Steve Prator, Sheriff La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
Corsey v. State, Through Dep’t of Corr., (La.
Nohc, Inc. v. Erroll G. Williams, Assessor, Parish of Orleans; Norman White, Director of Finance for the City … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
App. 4 Cir. 12/12/18), (quoting Corsey v. State, Through Dep’t of Corr., (La.
Glenda Emmons Aycock v. Board of Commissioners of the Bossier Levee District and City of Bossier City La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
Dwayne Alexander v. Wayne R. Centanni, Individually and D/B/A Centanni Investigative Agencies, and David Parnell, Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
3/6/19), (quoting Corsey v. State, Through Dep’t of Corr., (La.
Karen May,et Al. v. the Succession of Mayo Romero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
01/24/12), Corsey v. State Dep’t of Corr., ).
Jacob Stevenson, Jesse Stevenson, Individually And La. 2020
Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections, (La.
N. G. v. A. C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Bouterie v. Crane, supra; see Plaquemines Parish Com’n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., supra; Corsey v. State, through Dept. of Corrections, ” Id.
In re Med. Review Panel of Gerard Lindquist 274 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Lafourche Parish Water Dist. No. 1 v. Digco Util. Constr., L.P. 275 So. 3d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Division of Administration v. Mclnnis Brothers Construction , 701 So.2d at 940 , citing Corsey v. State, through Department of Corrections , , 1321 (La.
Ramos v. Le 261 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Marlon Eaglin v. Eunice Police Department La. 2018
3 Cir.1990); and Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections
Daniel P. McCauley v. Dr. Malcolm Stubbs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Co., Corsey v. State Dep’t. of Corrections, ).1 Plaintiff cites Carter v. Haygood, 04-646, p. 8 (La.
McCauley v. Stubbs 245 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Robert Wayne Hackett, Et Ux. v. Murphy Exploration & Production Co. USA La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Corsey v. State, through Dep’t of Corr., -22 (La.1979)(Footnotes omitted).
Hackett v. Murphy Exploration & Production Co. USA 216 So. 3d 63 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Corsey v. State, through Dep’t of Corr., -22 (La.
Felix v. Safeway Insurance Co. 183 So. 3d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2015
Tracy Ray Lomont v. Michelle Myer-Bennett and Xyz Insurance Company 172 So. 3d 620 La. 2015
1979); see also Corsey v. State, through Dept. Of Corrections, (La.
Hume v. Prestige Care, L.L.C. 165 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The doctrine of contra non valentum applies “[w]here the cause of action is not known or reasonably knowable by the plaintiff, even though his ignorance is not induced by the defendant.” Corsey v. State, Through Dep’t of Corr.
Prevo v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections Division of Probation & Parole 163 So. 3d 16 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Carter, supra; Wimberly, supra; Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections
Fred Bulliard v. the City of St. Martinville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
em applies, we specifically clarified that “[t]his principle will not exempt the plaintiff’s claim from the running of prescription if his ignorance is attributable to his own wilfulness or neglect; that is, a plaintiff will be deemed to know what he could by reasonable diligence have learned.” Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, (citing Cartwright v. Chrysler Corp., 255 La.
Bulliard v. City of St. Martinville 139 So. 3d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
of situation where contra non valentem applies, we specifically clarified that “[tjhis principle will not exempt the plaintiffs claim from the running of prescription if his ignorance is attributable to his own wilfulness or neglect; that is, a plaintiff will be deemed to know what he could by reasonable diligence have learned.” Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, (citing Cartwright v. Chrysler Corp., 255 La.
Richards v. Choice Hotels International, Inc. 142 So. 3d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
& Dev., 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), -54 (citing Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the *253 Department of Corrections, ); Standard Fire Ins.
Santiago v. Tulane University Hospital & Clinic 115 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Patrick's Hospital, Corsey v. State, through Dept. of Corrections, -1322 (La.1979).
Beverly Lebouef v. Dr. Joseph O'Donnell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
recited those situations in which the doctrine may apply to prevent the running of liberative prescription: (1) Where there was some legal cause which prevented the court or its officers from taking cognizance of and acting on the plaintiff’s actions; (2) Where there was some conditi
Williams v. Library 111 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Corsey v. State, Dept., of Comctions
Katherine Sepulvado v. Rebecca Procell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Our courts have long held that “[t]his principle will not except the plaintiff’s claim from the running of prescription if his ignorance is attributable to his own willfulness or neglect; that is, a plaintiff will be deemed to know what he could by reasonable diligence have learned.” Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections
Sepulvado v. Procell 99 So. 3d 1107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Our courts have long held that “[t]his principle will not except the plaintiff’s claim from the running of prescription if his ignorance is attributable to his own willfulness or neglect; that is, a plaintiff will be deemed to know what he could by reasonable diligence have learned.” Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections
Wells v. Zadeck 89 So. 3d 1145 La. 2012
However, “[t]his principle will not except the plaintiffs claim from the running of prescription if his ignorance is attributable to his own willfulness or neglect; that is, a plaintiff will be deemed to know what he could by reasonable diligence have learned.” Marin , 09-2368 at 13 (La.10/19/10), 48 So.3d at 245-246 , citing Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections
Barbe v. American Sugar Refining, Inc. 83 So. 3d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 10/23/02) , , citing Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, -22 (La.1979).
Becker v. Murphy Oil Corp. 70 So. 3d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
|aflThe “ancient civilian doctrine” of contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio “has been recognized from Louisiana’s earliest jurisprudence.” Cor-sey v. State, Through Dept. of Corr.
Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 48 So. 3d 234 La. 2010
In Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections, this Court described the fourth category of contra non valentem as “genetically similar to instances provided by statute where prescription does not begin to run until the claimant has knowledge of his cause of action.” 375 So.2d at 1322 .
Guillot v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. 50 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
10 White *181 v. West Carroll Hospital, Inc., -56 (La.1992); Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections
Ford Motor Credit Company v. Dunham 25 So. 3d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Williams v. New Orleans Police Department 24 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
3 Cir.1990); and Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections
Artholee v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co. of Kansas 3 So. 3d 611 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Art. 3467, Comment (d); Corsey v. State, Through the Dept. *614 Of Corrections, 63931 (La.10/8/1979), .
Labit v. Palms Casino & Truck Stop, Inc. 4 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
3 The first category applies “where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or them officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiffs action.” Corsey v. State, Through Dep’t of Corrections
Kampmann v. Mason 7 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
through the Dep’t of Corrections
Wilhike v. Polk 999 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Saylor v. VILLCAR REALTY, LLC 999 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
4 Cir. 10/23/02), , citing Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, -22 (La.1979).
Jackson v. JEFFERSON PARISH CLERK OF COURT 981 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, (La.
Stanford v. ADMINISTRATORS OF TULANE FUND 975 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Herman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 977 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Id., citing Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, (La.
In Re Jenkins 945 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections, Ducote v. Touro Infirmary, XXXX-XXXX (La.App.
Thornton v. City of Shreveport 865 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Wimberly, supra; Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections
Mary L. Brown v. Avoyelles Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
5/15/01), 10 (quoting Corsey v. State, Through Dep’t of Corr., -22 (La.1979)).
Brown v. Avoyelles Parish School Bd. 861 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Co., 00-2403, p. 10 (La.5/15/01), (quoting Corsey v. State, Through Dep't of Corr., -22 (La.1979)).
Ducote v. Touro Infirmary 860 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
See also Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections