Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pounds v. Schori, 377 So. 2d 1195.

84 citing documents.

City of Shreveport v. CDM Smith, Inc. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
LARRY BIZE, SR. AND v. VERSUS La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
of Ethics v.] Ourso, 02-1978 at p. 4, 842 So.2d [346,] 349; Hebert [v. Doctors Memorial Hosp.], 486 So.2d [717,] 723
Harold Breaux, Sr. v. Terry B. Soileau La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
11, 28 So.899, 901 (1900)(emphasis added)
Quatrevingt v. State 242 So. 3d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/27/07), , 49 ; Pounds v. Schori , , 1198 (La.
Shields v. Alvin R. Savoie & Associates, Inc. 214 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
MR Pittman Group, LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Government 182 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Reggio v. Reggio 166 So. 3d 290 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
Pociask v. Moseley 122 So. 3d 533 La. 2013
Barber v. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau 97 So. 3d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Barcia v. Louisiana Medical Malpractice Insurance Co. 67 So. 3d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Ourso, 02-1978 at p. 4, 842 So.2d at 349; Hebert, 486 So.2d at 723
Naghi v. Brener 17 So. 3d 919 La. 2009
899 , 901 (1900); (liberative prescription merely prevents the enforcement of a right by action; in contrast, peremption destroys the right itself).
Wooley v. Lucksinger 14 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
-99 (La.1979), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed how the doctrine of peremption in the jurisprudence was perceived conceptually prior to the time it was made late, as follows: Our jurisprudence has long recognized a major distinction between a statute of limitations (prescription) and a peremption.
J.M.Y. v. R.R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Jmy v. Rr 1 So. 3d 725 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
J.M.Y. v. R.R. 1 So. 3d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Savoy v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 993 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
the Supreme Court analyzed La.
Borel v. Young 989 So. 2d 42 La. 2008
Ourso, 02-1978 at p. 4, 842 So.2d at 349; Hebert, 486 So.2d at 723
Matherne v. Broussard 959 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Glod v. Baker 899 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Walter A. Glod, Jr., M.D. v. W. Gregory Baker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
t can be exercised and provides that “[u]nless timely exercised, the right is extinguished upon the expiration of the peremptive period.” The Louisiana Supreme Court explained that peremption “totally destroys the previously existing right with the result that, upon expiration of the prescribed period, a cause of action or substantive right no longer exists to be enforced.”
Marsh Engineering, Inc. v. Ernest L. Parker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Marsh Engineering Inc. v. Parker 883 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Mark M. Simmons v. La. Dept. of Pub. Saf. & Correct., Office of Motor Vehicles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Simmons v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles 872 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Gallo v. Gallo 861 So. 2d 168 La. 2003
Conerly v. State 858 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Dufrene v. VIDEO CO-OP, LA. WORKERS'COMP. 843 So. 2d 1066 La. 2003
Leger v. Leger 829 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
State Bd. of Ethics v. Ourso 838 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Furthermore, the court stated that the public policy behind a statute is a significant factor in distinguishing peremption from prescription.
Paternostro v. LaRocca 813 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Boykin v. Coregis Insurance 800 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Hernandez v. Hernandez 763 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Warner v. Carimi Law Firm 725 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Sudwischer v. Estate of Huffpauir 705 So. 2d 724 La. 1997
State v. McInnis Bros. Const. 701 So. 2d 937 La. 1997
Brannan v. Talbot 691 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Burke v. Ledig, 94-2044 (La.App.
State ex rel. Division of Administration v. McInnis Bros. Construction 690 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Hall v. Hall 689 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Fruge v. Fruge 682 So. 2d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Whiddon v. Whiddon 676 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Lastrapes v. Willis 635 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Metropolitan Erection v. Landis Const. 627 So. 2d 144 La. 1993
Mills v. Mills 626 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Graham v. Conque 626 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Nepveaux v. Fitzgerald, supra at 348
State in Interest of Taylor 637 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Guillory v. GUILLORY EX REL. ARCENEAUX 615 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Bolton v. Bolton 617 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Bryant v. Heritage Life Ins. Co. 613 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
states that: Legislation which affects substantive rights may not be accorded retrospective application unless it contains language expressly indicative of legislative intent to make it retroactive, and then only when constitutional guarantees such as due process, vested rights and the inviolability of contr
Preferred Inv. Corp. v. Neucere 592 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
the Supreme Court held that the six (6) months time limitation within which to file a suit to disavow paternity under C.C.
Ritchie v. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORR. 595 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991