DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Flowers v. US Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 381 So. 2d 378.

92 citing documents.

  • Jason Leteff v. Estate of Trebor Yocum and Geico Casualty Company La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2026
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. Inc., (La.
  • Jordan Collins, Sr. v. Albertina Collins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • The Bank of New York Mellon Fka the Bank of New York, as Trustee v. Michael E. Oldemeyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., (emphasis added) (quoting 2 Civil Law Translations, Aubry & Rau, Property, § 215, No. 304, p. 344 (1966)).
  • Stevenson v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co. 275 So. 3d 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • Daigle Oil Distributors, LLC v. Elizabeth Irene Istre La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    As noted by the supreme court in Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., (on rehearing), and followed by this court in Bridges v. Bridges, 96-1191 (La.App.
  • Daigle Oil Distribs., LLC v. Istre 243 So. 3d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    As noted by the supreme court in Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. , , 383 (La.1980) (on rehearing), and followed by this court in Bridges v. Bridges , 96-1191 (La.App.
  • U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Custer 236 So. 3d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    6/26/09), , 99, citing Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. , (La.
  • MR Pittman Group, LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Government 182 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “Acknowledgement interruptive of prescription results from any act or fact which contains or implies the admission of the existence of the right.” 5 Civil Law, Translations, Baudry-Lacantinerie & Tissier, Prescription, § 529, cited approvingly by Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Jackson v. Hicks 147 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. Inc.
  • Marseilles Homeowners Condominium Ass'n v. Broadmoor, L.L.C. 111 So. 3d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “Acknowledgement interruptive of prescription results from any act or fact which contains or implies the admission of the existence of the right.” 5 Civil Law Translations, Baudry-Lacantinerie & Tissier, Prescription, § 529, cited approvingly by Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Safeco Insurance Co. v. Norcold, Inc. 113 So. 3d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In the case of Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., confusingly cited by Safeco as support for its position, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that conduct very similar to Nor cold’s did not amount to acknowledgment.
  • Cawley v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 65 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Neese v. PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA 44 So. 3d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Co., (discussing La.C.C.
  • Titus v. IHOP RESTAURANT, INC. 25 So. 3d 761 La. 2009
    Co., this Court stated that acknowledgment sufficient to interrupt prescription may be made by partial payment, by payment of interest, by pledge, or in other ways, and that it may be implicit, or it may be inferred from the facts and circumstances.
  • Wilma Young Baker v. John Burr Baker, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Acknowledgment may be “oral or written, formal or informal, and express or tacit.” See Comment (e) to La.Civ.Code art. 3464
  • Baker v. Baker 27 So. 3d 958 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Acknowledgment may be “oral or written, formal or informal, and express or tacit.” See Comment (e) to La.Civ.Code art. 3464
  • Demma v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange 15 So. 3d 95 La. 2009
    In Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, (La.
  • Peyton Place, Condominium Associates, Inc. v. Guastella 18 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Fountain v. LaVigne 980 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Co., that the prescription of a delictual obligation could be interrupted by either an express or tacit acknowledgment, 2005-2289 (La.10/17/06) at *6, 939 So.2d at 1258 , and that it had previously held that an unconditional payment or tender could be an acknowledgment sufficient to interrupt prescription.
  • Neikirk v. Resource Management, Inc. 983 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    Co., (discussing LSA-C.C.
  • Saraphine C. Brunston v. Shirley K. Hoover La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Brunston v. Hoover 945 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., .
  • Mallett v. McNeal 939 So. 2d 1254 La. 2006
    Co., (on rehearing), this court consulted Aubry and Rau in interpreting the codal article dealing with acknowledgment, quoting: The acknowledgment with the interruptive effect may be express or tacit.
  • Satterthwaite v. Byais 943 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., -83 (La.1980).
  • Young v. Gremillion 924 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    art. 3464; Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Schilling v. Cooper 928 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Defendants cite Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., as authority for the contention that defendants’ settlement of Fallon’s claim did not constitute an acknowledgment of Felicia’s claim.
  • Stewart Head, Et Ux. v. Shetler Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., -3 (La.1979); Touchet v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
  • Head v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. 916 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., -3 (La.1979); Touchet v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
  • Perez v. Finn 899 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    See, Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Rosen, supra; Crain, supra; Barbarin v. Wal-Mart Stores, 01-669, pp. 5 (La.App.
  • Sinegal v. Kennedy 883 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Michael Sinegal v. Richard R. Kennedy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • John T. Bennett v. State Farm Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Bennett v. State Farm Ins. Co. 869 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Rosen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 870 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Construing this article and reaffirming its prior holding in Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., that a delictual obligation can be tacitly acknowledged, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Lima, supra, offered the following generalizations: A tacit acknowledgment occurs when a debtor performs acts of reparation or indemnity, makes an unconditional offer or payment, or lulls the creditor into believing he w
  • Crain v. Pletka 806 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    See Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Waller v. Stuckey, supra ; Barbarin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-669 (La.App.
  • Compton v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 796 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    In Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., the supreme court stated that an acknowledgment sufficient to interrupt prescription against a delictual action may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case.
  • Woods v. St. Charles Parish School Bd. 783 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., -3 (La.1979); Touchet v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
  • James v. Clark 767 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, (La.
  • Hill v. Hathaway 741 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.
  • Veillion v. Fontenot 692 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Co., Landor v. Allstate Ins.
  • Bridges v. Bridges 692 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    In Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., the supreme court stated, "legal prescription is personal, and generally benefits only the person with whom it originates or whose right has been acknowledged."
  • Stagni v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 685 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Co., Flowers v. USF & G, (La.
  • Sotomayor v. Lewis 673 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    [2] In support of this argument
  • Gary v. Camden Fire Ins. Co. 665 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Touchet and Farley applied the doctrine "[l]egal interruption does not regularly transfer from one obligation or action to another", a doctrine from the Roman law first announced in our jurisprudence in the case of Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Wright v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. 662 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    1992); Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Christen v. Al Copeland Enterprises, Inc. 635 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Martinez v. Breaux Mart, Inc. 631 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    & G., and Melton v. U.S.F.
  • Metropolitan Erection v. Landis Const. 627 So. 2d 144 La. 1993
  • Perault v. Time Ins. Co. 633 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    4th Cir.), aff'd in part, amended, and remanded on other grounds
  • Keller v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 617 So. 2d 893 La. 1993
    In Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., this court, interpreting La.Civ.Code art. 3520, the precursor to Article 3464, stated that a tacit acknowledgment is sufficient to interruption prescription running against a delictual action.