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.

  • Strata v. Patin 545 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    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 is applied to prevent the running of liberative prescription: 1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from
  • Bolton v. New England Insurance Co. 542 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    For a thorough discussion of the doctrine of contra non valentem, see Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections
  • Whitnell v. Menville 540 So. 2d 304 La. 1989
  • Doe v. Ainsworth 540 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Thus plaintiff's cause of action in the present case would have expired in mid 1980, unless we find that contra non valentem should be applicable under the facts and evidence presented before us. The Louisiana Supreme Court in Corsey v. State, Dept. of Corrections, set out three circumstances in which the principle of contra non valentem has traditionally been applied.
  • Trujillo v. Boone 539 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Kozlowski v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HHR 534 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • Lewis v. Sohio Petroleum Co. 528 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Kozlowski v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Human Resources 534 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Bock v. Harmon 526 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    The doctrine of contra non valentem was examined in detail by the Supreme Court in Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections
  • Manion v. Pollingue 524 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Rozas v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN RES. 522 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    In support of this contention, in which our Supreme Court held that contra non valentem applies to suspend prescription when the plaintiff has been prevented from pursuing his claim due to the fault or wrongful conduct of the defendant.
  • Shortess v. Touro Infirmary 520 So. 2d 389 La. 1988
  • Welch v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc. 521 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    (This 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.)" (citations omitted).
  • Matthews v. Sun Exploration and Production 521 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Minor v. Casten 521 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    Gover, 497 So.2d at 1368
  • Malone v. Wright 525 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    [1] For a thorough discussion of the doctrine of contra non valentem, see Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections, (La.
  • Moran v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. 519 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    -55 (La.1987); -22 (La.1979).
  • Board of Levee Commissioners of Orleans Levee District v. Newport Ltd. 517 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    1st Cir.1978), reversed on other grounds
  • Soileau v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. 520 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Richards v. LaCour 515 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Laughlin v. Breaux 515 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Levet v. Calais & Sons, Inc. 514 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    1 Cir. 1978); reversed on other grounds, Chouest v. A & P Boat Rentals, Inc., supra .
  • St. Charles Parish School Bd. v. GAF Corp. 512 So. 2d 1165 La. 1987
    [4] Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Department of Corrections
  • Griffin v. Kinberger 507 So. 2d 821 La. 1987
    Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Department of Corrections
  • Maltby v. Gauthier 506 So. 2d 1190 La. 1987
    Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Department of Corrections
  • Dixon v. Roque 503 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Plaquemines Par. Com'n Council v. Delta Dev. Co. 502 So. 2d 1034 La. 1987
    In this case we have to determine just what principles are applicable in the contra non valentem situation involved here, and more fundamentally, whether contra non valentem continues to be a viable exception to the running of liberative prescription.
  • Olivier v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh 499 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    [8] For a thorough discussion of the doctrine of contra non valentum
  • Gover v. Bridges 497 So. 2d 1364 La. 1986
    Plaintiffs' claim that prescription did not accrue because of a letter of Dr. Bridges which "effectually prevented" ( ) them from availing themselves of their cause of action for their mother's death.
  • Gover v. Bridges 486 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    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
  • Crier v. Whitecloud 486 So. 2d 713 La. 1986
    Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections
  • Richland Parish Hosp. Service Dist. v. Hanover Ins. Companies 486 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    art. 3467, official revision comment (d)
  • Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hosp. 486 So. 2d 717 La. 1986
  • Plaquemines Parish Comm'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc. 486 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    : As the cited comment notes, 12 Tul.L.
  • Kubnick v. Sorum 483 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Albares v. Exnicios 480 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Blanchard v. Reeves 469 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    [2] for an explanation and application of the principle.
  • Loupe v. Avondale Shipyards 470 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    As a defense against the exception of prescription the appellant invokes the principal of contra non valentum, which when applied prevents the running of liberative prescription under four circumstances
  • In re Filiation of Jones 463 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Corsey v. State Dept, of Corrections
  • Owens v. Martin 449 So. 2d 448 La. 1984
    " Corsey v. The State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections
  • Coliseum House, Inc. v. Brock 442 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Distinguished Harvey v. Davis 432 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co., 139 La.
  • Chaney v. State Through Dept. of Health 432 So. 2d 256 La. 1983
    [4] we set forth the categories of situations in which this doctrine applies so as to prevent the running of *259 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 action; (2) Where there was some con
  • West v. Gajdzik 425 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Corsey v. State, Dept. of Corrections
  • Grant v. Carroll 424 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Midco Louisiana Co. v. AQUATIC EQUIP. & ENG., INC. 423 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    [2] Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections
  • Trainer v. Aycock Welding Co. 421 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Corsey v. State, Department of Corrections, (La.
  • Bennett v. General Motors Corp. 420 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Justice Tate speaking for our Supreme Court sets forth the categories of situations in which our jurisprudence holds the principle of contra non valentem applicable: As the cited comment notes, 12 Tul.L.
  • Fontaine v. McDonald Systems, Inc. 419 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    n this Section, unless a copy of the petition has been served as required, or such service has been waived as provided in Subsection C.”
  • McPherson v. Roy 390 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    1st Cir. 1979) reversed on other grounds, and cases therein cited.