DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

201 citing documents.

  • Castaneda v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n 657 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Delta Development Company, Inc., (La.
  • Doe v. Roman Catholic Church 656 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    In the district court, appellant sought to invoke the doctrine of contra non valentem citing the holding of the Louisiana Supreme Court in Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections
  • Doskey v. Hebert 645 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Adams v. First Nat. Bank of Commerce 644 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Miley v. Consolidated Gravity Drainage Dist. No. 1 642 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Sessions & Fishman v. Liquid Air Corp. 642 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Wimberly v. Schumpert Medical Center 641 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • La Plaque Corp. v. Chevron USA Inc. 638 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 636 So. 2d 211 La. 1994
    Moreover, there had been court decisions prior to 1975 (citing pre-1975 cases).
  • Grelle v. Youngblood 635 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Wimberly v. Gatch 635 So. 2d 206 La. 1994
    Bouterie v. Crane, supra ; see Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., supra ; Corsey v. State, through Dept. of Corrections
  • Smith v. Dow Chemical Co. 635 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • April v. Associated Catholic Charities 629 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Lynch 633 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    art. 3467 & comment (d)
  • L & M Hair Care Products, Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 622 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Wimberly v. Gatch 621 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Art. 3496.1 fails to provide a suspension of the prescriptive period, we next address the doctrine of contra non valentem, as enunciated in Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections
  • Zidan v. USAA Property and Cas. Ins. Co. 622 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections
  • Taylor v. Giddens 618 So. 2d 834 La. 1993
    The second period of prescription, which is one year from discovery of the act, omission or neglect, incorporates the discovery rule of the fourth category of the doctrine of contra non valentem enunciated in Corsey v. State of La., Department of Corrections
  • Bouterie v. Crane 616 So. 2d 657 La. 1993
    See Id.; Corsey v. State, through Dept. of Corrections
  • Cole v. Celotex Corp. 611 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Harsh v. Calogero 615 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Ward 612 So. 2d 964 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Delta Development Company, Inc., Rajnowski v. St.
  • Simpkins v. Means 612 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Held v. State Farm Ins. Co. 610 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    However, applied contra non valentem's third principle, "where the debtor himself has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of his cause of action," to Corsey, an Angola inmate, who suffered organic brain damage after he was stabbed by another inmate.
  • Red River Valley Bank v. Home Ins. Co. 607 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • White v. WEST CARROLL HOSP., INC. 598 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Maison Blanche, Inc. v. Louisiana Department of Labor, Office of Employment Security 604 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Jarreau v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 600 So. 2d 1389 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Cole v. Celotex Corp. 599 So. 2d 1058 La. 1992
  • Simeon v. Doe 602 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    The contra non valentum doctrine provides generally that prescription does not run against a party who is unable to act, and as applied to this case, unable to act because plaintiffs did not know of the cause of action against DHHR.
  • Landreneau v. Fruge 598 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    The situations giving rise to application of the doctrine were described by our Supreme Court in Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections, as: 1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting upon the plaintiff's action; 2) where there was some conditions coupled with the contract or connected with the proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing or acting; 3) where the
  • Teague v. Scott 597 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    For a thorough discussion of this concept, see Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections, (La.
  • Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 597 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    The legal principle that prescription does not commence until a party has actual or constructive notice of his cause of action is the fourth category of contra non valen-tem set forth in Corsey v. State, Through Dept, of Corrections
  • Matherne v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 599 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • In Re Medical Review Panel for Claim of Milton 593 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, held that, "[d]espite the express statutory provision [of La.C.C.
  • Crosby v. Keys 590 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    We further observe that the doctrine of contra non valentem, as enunciated in Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections, is not applicable to the instant case.
  • Travers-Wakeford v. St. Pierre 585 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth four categories of situations in which this doctrine can operate to stop the running of prescription: (1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance or acting on the plaintiffs' action; (2) where there was some c
  • Beth Israel v. Bartley, Inc. 579 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Camaille v. Martzell 579 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
    at pages 1321 and 1322 for a full discussion of contra non valentem.
  • Jackson v. Ascension Parish School Bd. 573 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Department of Corrections, Zumo v. R.T.
  • Lloyd v. Howard 566 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Plaintiff cites Corsey v. State, Through the Department of Corrections, et al.
  • Succession of Smith v. Kavanaugh, Pierson and Talley 565 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    [7] For a thorough discussion of the doctrine of contra non valentem
  • Braud v. New England Ins. Co. 562 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • Trainor v. Young 561 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • Rajnowski v. St. Patrick's Hosp. 564 So. 2d 671 La. 1990
    9:5628, we recognized a fourth more modern situation, "[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."
  • Intracoastal Seafood Co., Inc. v. Scott 556 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    4th Cir.1989), writ denied, our brethren of the Fourth Circuit stated: "In Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections, -1322 (La.1979), the Louisiana Supreme Court described the four categories of situations in which the principle of contra non valentem agere nulla currit praesciptio [sic] is applied to prevent the running of liberative prescription: 1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers
  • Rajnowski v. ST. PARTICK'S HOSPITAL OF LAKE CHARLES 551 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., (La.
  • In re Medical Review Panel of Howard 554 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    (1979) our Supreme Court outlined the applicability of the doctrine in the following instances: “(1) Where there was a legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on plaintiff’s claim; (2) Where the plaintiff is prevented by some act of the defendant from availing himse
  • National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Spillars 552 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Corsey v. State, Dept. of Corr.
  • Dunn v. North Community Hosp. 545 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Turning to the question of contra non valentem, where it was held that prescription would not run where 1) some legal cause prevents the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff's actions, 2) a condition is coupled with the contract or connected with the proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing or acting, 3)