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.

  • Mellon Financial Services Corp. 7 v. Lafayette Insurance Co. 616 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    also fails to support Lafayette’s position.
  • Metropolitan Erection Co. v. Landis Construction Co. 613 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Waller v. Stuckey 613 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    & G. Co., (construing the predecessor article to LSA-C.C.
  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Manuel 608 So. 2d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    The trial court took up the exception of prescription and in a written opinion held that “any interruption of prescription as to Geral Manuel does not extend to State Farm in its status as subrogee.” The court apparently relied on the holding in Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., that: “The interruption of prescription has no effect beyond the specific right of the person of which the debtor makes acknowledgment.” The court also held that certain correspondence between GEICO and State
  • Landreneau v. Duplechin 595 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    104 , at 509 (1970); Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. on rehearing.
  • Lima v. Schmidt 595 So. 2d 624 La. 1992
    Indeed, on original hearing in Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., we construed LSA-C.C.
  • Alexander v. Minnieweather 595 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Flowers v. USF & G, (La.
  • Henderson v. Meshell 579 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Coleman v. Audubon Insurance Co. 572 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., discussed acknowledgment under LSA-C.C.
  • Landor v. Allstate Ins. Co. 571 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • Gaharan v. STATE, DOTD 566 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • RICHARD GUTHRIE & ASSOC. v. Stone 562 So. 2d 1071 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • Sandoz v. Dolphin Services, Inc. 555 So. 2d 996 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, (La.
  • Farley v. Pat Todd Oil Co., Inc. 544 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    art. 3464; and Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Touchet v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 542 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    Art. 3464; and Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Turner v. WILLOW TREE TOWNHOMES P'SHIP. 533 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., , *109 382 (La.1979).
  • Melton v. US Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co. 531 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the provisions of C.C.
  • Knecht v. BD. OF TRUSTEES FOR COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 525 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • St. Romain v. Lambert 521 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, (La.
  • Williams v. American Family Mut. Ins. 520 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • First National Bank of Jefferson Parish v. Boudreaux 511 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Bahr v. Wood 507 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    In Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., the supreme court stated the acknowledgment with the interruptive effect may be express or tacit.'
  • Wallace v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 509 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    art. 3464; Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Johnmeyer v. Creel 499 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, LSA-C.C.
  • Deville v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Ins. Co. 492 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    The Supreme Court, outlined the law pertinent to this situation: "Prescription of a right to damages for personal injuries or medical expenses arising from an offense or quasi-offense may be interrupted by either an express or a tacit acknowledgment of the right by the debtor.
  • Guice v. Mustakas 490 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    Counsel for the plaintiff argued at the trial level and here that prescription was interrupted and cites Civil Code Article 3520 and the jurisprudence formed thereunder, particularly, Flowers v. USF & G, (on rehearing) (La.1980) in support of his argument.
  • Frederick v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co. 467 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    La.Civ.Code art. 3464; Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Odessa House v. Goss 453 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., on rehearing
  • White v. Miller 447 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    In Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, (La.
  • Brumfield v. Martin 428 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    it may be implicit or it may be inferred from the facts and circumstances.” Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., citing Lake Providence Equipment Co. v. Tallulah Prod.
  • Distinguished Armstrong v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 424 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    but the Flowers facts and circumstances are distinguishable from Armstrong’s. In Flowers , settlement negotiations were continual while State Farm and Armstrong had no contact after the May 17, 1979, deposition.
  • Autin v. Parish of Lafourche 423 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
  • Simmons v. Bartleet Chemical, Inc. 420 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Boudreaux v. Trapp 420 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    ment was coupled with a clear declaration of his intent to interrupt prescription, as evidenced by the words ‘and all rights of prescription waived.’ The Court can think of no clearer way to declare such intent.” The findings of the trial judge come within the principles of sufficient acknowledgment to interrupt prescription as discussed and stated in Flowers v. V. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supporting the principles expressed in Lake Providence Equipment Co. v. Tallulah Prod.
  • Trainer v. Aycock Welding Co. 421 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, (La.
  • Fontaine v. McDonald Systems, Inc. 419 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., (La.
  • Firemen's Charitable & Benevolent Ass'n v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 413 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Art. 3520 provides: “Prescription ceases likewise to run whenever the debtor, or possessor, makes acknowledgment of the right of the person whose title they prescribed.” In the comparatively recent case, Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., on rehearing, the Louisiana Supreme Court applying the Codal provision in a one-year prescription personal injury case stated that acknowledgement sufficient to interrupt prescription “...
  • Collins v. Capital Valve and Fitting Co. 409 So. 2d 579 La. 1982
    The trial court sustained the plea but then overruled it on rehearing, citing Flowers v. U. S. F. & G., and Richardson v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Ins.
  • Collins v. Capital Valve & Fitting, Inc. 402 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Burns v. Fernandez 401 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    This contention is supported by Flowers v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., (La.
  • Emery v. Cabral 400 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    citing Lake Providence Equipment Co. v. Tallulah Prod.
  • Richardson v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU, ETC. 393 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    As applied to liberative prescription, Article 3520, in effect, provides that such prescription is legally interrupted when the debtor makes acknowledgment of the right of the creditor, the person against whose claim he prescribed, Flowers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, and, in effect, is applicable to all rights or actions.