DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ferguson v. Lankford, 374 So. 2d 1205.

15 citing documents.

  • Hendrick v. STONE, PIGMAN, WALTHER, ETC. 677 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    [6] where, in dicta, the court acknowledged a tortfeasor's right to proceed in contribution against a joint tortfeasor although the plaintiff's claim against that tortfeasor had prescribed.
  • Ard v. East Jefferson General Hospital, Inc. 654 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    the Supreme Court addressed this issue and reasoned as follows at page 1208: “In order now to say that a claim, timely filed against health care providers, one “qualified” and one not “qualified,” interrupts prescription running in favor of both, it would be necessary to hold that a proceeding under the Med
  • Melancon v. Insurance Corp. of America 633 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    involved the issue of interruption of prescription against the hospital and physician who were solidary obligers.
  • Lebleu v. Southern Silica of Louisiana 554 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    The third-party defendants, relying upon Lanier, supra, argued to the trial court that a third-party plaintiff seeking contribution does not always step into plaintiff's shoes.
  • Whitnell v. Menville 540 So. 2d 304 La. 1989
  • Shortess v. Touro Infirmary 520 So. 2d 389 La. 1988
    40:1299.41(D), [8] the timely claim against Touro did not interrupt prescription against the Blood Center.
  • Eiskina v. Keasler 511 So. 2d 1289 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Shortess v. Touro Infirmary 508 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    at 1206-1207 (La.1979): Plaintiff contends that the filing of a request for a medical review panel pursuant to the Medical Malpractice Act provides plaintiff with an additional ninety days whether or not the defendant has qualified for coverage by the act, because prescription is interrupted or suspended by filing a c
  • Fontenot v. Opelousas General Hosp. 503 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Guidroz v. Mullins 496 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Moreover, the supreme court stated: *521 In order now to say that a claim, timely filed against health care providers, one "qualified" and one not "qualified," interrupts prescription running in favor of both, it would be necessary to hold that a proceeding under the Medical Malpractice Act is equivalent to a s
  • Bertrand v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 491 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Juneau v. Hartford Ins. Co. 458 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center 453 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Roberts v. Russo 400 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    2091 and 2324; Ferguson v. Lankford, La., ; Reeves v. Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company, La., ; Jones v. Maestri, 170 La.
  • Chivleatto v. Divinity 379 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    9:5628 runs immediately from the malpractice or its discovery, without suspension by any request for a medical review panel, Ferguson v. Lankford, La.1979, .