Cited by

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

201 citing documents.

Grant v. Tulane University 853 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
4 Cir. 10/23/02), , citing Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, -22 (La.1979).
Amoco Production Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 838 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
DOTD, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), ; Touchet v. Baker Hughes, Inc., 98-749 (La.App.
Medical Review Panel Proceeding of Poche v. Bloom 834 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Corsey v. State, Dept. of Corrections
Landry v. Blaise, Inc. 829 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, -22 (La.10/8/79).
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc. 824 So. 2d 1137 La. 2002
[7] As this Court stated in Corsey v. State of Louisiana, through the Dept. of Corrections, the jurisprudence has recognized the doctrine of contra non valentem as "a limited exception where in fact and for good cause a plaintiff is unable to exercise his cause of action when it accrues."
Jenkins v. Dyess 821 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
The leading case of the Louisiana Supreme Court summarizing the doctrine of contra non valentem is Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections
Williams v. Holiday Inn Worldwide 816 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Bouterie v. Crane, supra; see Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., supra; Corsey v. State, through Dept. of Corrections
Hudson v. JACKSON PARISH SCHOOL BD. 811 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
See Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections, (La.App.
Renfroe v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. 809 So. 2d 947 La. 2002
Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Dept. of Corrections, (La.
Griffin v. BSFI WESTERN E & P, INC. 812 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
art. 3467 & Revision Comments-1982 (d); see Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections
DIVISION PLACE PART. v. Carl E. Woodward, Inc. 806 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Hendrick v. ABC Ins. Co. 787 So. 2d 283 La. 2001
Ann. 729 (1856); Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections
Krolick v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Human Resources 790 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections, -22 (La.
Krolick v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF HRS 790 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections, -22 (La.
Ellender v. Goldking Production Co. 775 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections, -22 (La.1979).
Guitreau v. Kucharchuk 763 So. 2d 575 La. 2000
through the Dep't of Corrections, (La.
American Casualty Co. v. Security Industrial Insurance Co. 745 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections, -22 (La.1979).
Southern v. Bank One of Louisiana, NA 740 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361 (La.4/11/94), ; Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections
Steele v. Steele 732 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Wimberly v. Gatch, supra
Exxon Pipeline v. La Public Service Com'n 728 So. 2d 855 La. 1999
and Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections
Morgan v. Moulder 727 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
See Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections
Wadsworth v. ABC Ins. Co. 732 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
In response, plaintiff argued that under contra non valentem and Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, prescription was suspended because she suffered from battered woman's syndrome which rendered her unable to file suit.
Explained Evans v. Canadianoxy Offshore Production Co. 730 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
applies when the debt- or himself has done some act that effectually prevents the creditor from availing himself of his cause of action.
In Re Medical Review Panel for Dede 729 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
See Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections
In re Medical Review Panel for the Claim of Dede 713 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
9:5628; Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, -22 (La.1979).
Quibodeaux v. Medical Center of Southwest Louisiana 707 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
See Corsey v. State Dep’t of Corrections
Quibodeaux v. MEDICAL CENTER OF SW LA. 707 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Clark v. Mrs. Fields Cookies 707 So. 2d 17 La. 1998
Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, Vance v. Ellerbe, 150 La.
Reeder v. North 701 So. 2d 1291 La. 1997
Terrel v. Perkins 704 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections, -22 (La.1979).
State v. McInnis Bros. Const. 701 So. 2d 937 La. 1997
In Corsey v. State, through Dept. of Corrections, *940 this court reiterated the three categories of situations to which contra non valentem had been traditionally applied to suspend the running of liberative prescription: (1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff's act
Kavanaugh v. Long 698 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Harvey v. Amoco Production Co. 696 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Plaintiff argues that under Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections, (1979), there are four situations in which the running of liberative prescription is prevented by the application of the principle of contra non valentem.
Claim of Aron 695 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, -22 (La.1979) (footnote, citations, and emphasis omitted).
State ex rel. Division of Administration v. McInnis Bros. Construction 690 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections, (La.
Cameron Parish School Bd. v. Acands, Inc. 687 So. 2d 84 La. 1997
at pp. 9-10, 635 So.2d at 212 (emphasis added)); Jordan, 509 So.2d at 423 ("[A] plaintiff will be responsible to seek out those whom he believes may be responsible for a specific injury."); Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, (La.
Whitnell v. Silverman 686 So. 2d 23 La. 1996
Hoerner v. Wesley-Jensen 684 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Mrs. Hoerner asserts that the fourth category of the judicially created doctrine of contra non valentem, as set forth in Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, applies here: her cause of action was not known or reasonably knowable, although her ignorance was not induced by the defendants' conduct.
Robinson v. Whitney National Bank 683 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Senn v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF LA. STATE UNIV. 679 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, Wimberly v. Gatch, supra ; and Harrison v. Gore, 27,254 (La.App.
Johnson v. Concordia Bank & Trust Co. 671 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Id.; Corsey v. State, Through Department of Corrections
Benton v. Board of Commissioners for the East Jefferson Levee District 672 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
the court rendered this phrase as “prescription does not run against a party who is unable to act,” (At 1321).
Smith v. Fruehauf Trailer Operations 666 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Masters v. Fields 666 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
See Whitnell v. Menville, supra ().
Caillet v. Dykstra 666 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
National Council on Compensation Ins. v. QUIXX TEMPORARY SERVICES INC. 665 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Corsey v. State, through Dept. of Corrections, -22 (La.1979) (footnote, citations and emphasis omitted).
Stevens v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 663 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Leach v. Alonso 663 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
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 plaintiffs actions; (2) Where there was some condition coupled with the contr
Harrison v. Gore 660 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1 v. Alas 657 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995