Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Nathan v. Carter, 372 So. 2d 560.

40 citing documents.

In Re: Medical Review Proceedings Of Denielle Poree La. 2025
Dima Jarrar Versus Michael Rockvoan and Goauto Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
Karen May,et Al. v. the Succession of Mayo Romero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of La, Admin Div,office of Community Develop, Disaster Recov v. Wallace L. Styron Kristy B. Styron La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
N. G. v. A. C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
In re Med. Review Panel of Gerard Lindquist 274 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Nathan v. Carter , , 562 (La.
Meiko Prevo v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections Division of Probation and … La. 2015
Prevo v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections Division of Probation & Parole 187 So. 3d 395 La. 2015
In this regard, in which the defendants threatened the plaintiff with termination if she attempted to contact an attorney and determine her legal rights; In applying the law to the -facts as contained in the record before us, it is dear that, plaintiffs alleged acts of fraud and misrepresentation intentionally committed by
Tracy Ray Lomont v. Michelle Myer-Bennett and Xyz Insurance Company 172 So. 3d 620 La. 2015
Application of this category of contra non valentem is partly an application of “the long-established principle of law that one should not be able to take advantage of his own wrongful act.” (La.
Prevo v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections Division of Probation & Parole 163 So. 3d 16 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
an employee’s wife was allegedly told by the employer’s claims manager that if she contacted an attorney her workmen’s compensation benefits would be terminated and all benefits would be cut off while the matter was litigated.
Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 48 So. 3d 234 La. 2010
Guillot v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. 50 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
The doctrine of contra non va-lentem agere nulla currit praescriptio, an exception to the rule that prescription runs against all persons unless provided by legislation, 8 arose from a “long-established principle of law that one should not be able to take advantage of his own wrongful act.” 9 Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361 (La.4/11/94)
Jackson v. General Motors Truck Plant 886 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
See Lester v. Rebel Crane & Service Co.
Williams v. Holiday Inn Worldwide 816 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Richardson v. Tyson Foods 796 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
In Nathan v. Carter, [ ] the employer's claims manager told the deceased employee's widow that they would conduct a full investigation and that after the investigation, she would be given a lump sum settlement.
Hendrick v. ABC Ins. Co. 787 So. 2d 283 La. 2001
See, Dagenhart v. Robertson Truck Lines, Inc., (La.App.
Sterne v. Department of State Civil Service 731 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
The equitable doctrine of contra non valentem “has been applied to cases wherein defendant, has concealed the fact of the offense ....” Butler, 442 So.2d at 535
Evans v. Canadianoxy Offshore Production Co. 739 So. 2d 214 La. 1999
Evans v. Canadianoxy Offshore Production Co. 730 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
arguing that the facts in Nathan , being almost identical to those in this case, demonstrate implicitly that a tortfeasor may not defraud his victim through peremption of a cause of action.
Causby v. Perque Floor Covering 707 So. 2d 23 La. 1998
(citing Cartwright v. Chrysler Corp., 255 La.
Miley v. Consolidated Gravity Drainage Dist. No. 1 642 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Wimberly v. Gatch 635 So. 2d 206 La. 1994
Matherne v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 599 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Lloyd v. Howard 566 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Rajnowski v. ST. PARTICK'S HOSPITAL OF LAKE CHARLES 551 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Cartwright v. Chrysler Corp., 255 La.
Lewis v. Sohio Petroleum Co. 528 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Matthews v. Sun Exploration and Production 521 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc. v. XYZ Ins. Co. 520 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
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
in support of their argument that defendant's denial of guilt is tantamount to an act of fraud or concealment and as such, prescription was interrupted until the defendant's guilt as the arsonist was clearly established by his guilty plea and conviction.
Plaquemines Par. Com'n Council v. Delta Dev. Co. 502 So. 2d 1034 La. 1987
where a defendant "ha[d] concealed ...
Gover v. Bridges 497 So. 2d 1364 La. 1986
This letter does not approach the concealment, fraud and misrepresentation, for example, did not prevent the timely filing of the suit, and did not have the effect of interrupting or suspending prescription.
Elzy v. ABC Ins. Co. 472 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Contra non valentem is "but an application of the long-established principle of law that one should not be able to take advantage of his own wrongful act,"
Loupe v. Avondale Shipyards 470 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
where uncontroverted evidence in the form of affidavits of blatant misrepresentation of a widow's rights by a representative of her deceased husband's employer was sufficient for the court to find that the defendant had intentionally acted to prevent the plaintiff from filing suit.
In re Filiation of Jones 463 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Cartwright v. Chrysler Cor *964 poration, supra [ 255 La.
Butler v. Charity Hosp. of New Orleans, Dept. of Health and Human Resources 442 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
[t]his equitable doctrine has been applied to cases wherein defendant has concealed the fact of the offense or has committed acts (including concealment, fraud, misrepresentation, or other "ill practices") which tend to hinder, impede, or prevent plaintiff from asserting his cause of action, as long as
West v. Gajdzik 425 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Cartwright v. Chrysler Corporation, supra; Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co., 139 La.
Lirette v. Chromalloy American Corp. 424 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
the court said: “This court has, however, accepted in certain limited situations the common law doctrine contra non valentem agere non currit which means that prescription does not run against a person who could not bring his suit.
Davis v. Colvin 410 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections 375 So. 2d 1319 La. 1979
and cases cited therein.