Cited by

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

84 citing documents.

Williams v. Williams 587 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Weems v. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORR. 571 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Lasseigne v. Schouest & Sons, Builders 563 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Bunge Corp. v. Gatx Corp. 557 So. 2d 1376 La. 1990
Farrell v. Farrell 555 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
[4] The Louisiana Supreme Court has questioned whether La.C.C.
Kozlowski v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HHR 534 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Harris v. Estate of Fuller 532 So. 2d 1367 La. 1988
* * * * * * Looking to the method for determining whether a provision is peremptive or prescriptive, (La.
Latino v. Binswanger Glass Co. 532 So. 2d 960 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Landry v. Thibaut 523 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
the court considered whether the time limit for filing a disavowal action under the law in effect in 1976, before amendment, was peremptive or prescriptive.
Canal Marine Supply, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corp. 522 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Harris v. Estate of Fuller 521 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
the court clearly pointed out that peremption is but a form or species of prescription.
Conner v. Conner 515 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Comeaux v. Roy 517 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
St. Charles Parish School Bd. v. GAF Corp. 512 So. 2d 1165 La. 1987
Boland v. Roussel 495 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
[1] for a discussion of the difference between a prescriptive and a peremptive period.
Achord v. City of Baton Rouge 489 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hosp. 486 So. 2d 717 La. 1986
Succession of Sanders 485 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Griffin v. SUCCESSION OF BRANCH EX REL. SMITH 480 So. 2d 313 La. 1986
Nepveaux v. Fitzgerald 480 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
the Louisiana Supreme Court pointed out the dissimilarities.
Schulin v. Service Painting Co. of Louisiana 479 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Flowers, Guillory v. Avoyelles Railway Co., 104 La.
Succession of Bartie 472 So. 2d 578 La. 1985
Spaht, Persons, Developments in the Law, 1981-1982, 43 La.L.Rev.
Phillips v. Phillips 467 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Ward v. Blache 466 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Plaintiff cannot prevail regardless of whether the doctrine of uninterruptible peremption is strictly implied, or whether deference is paid to the Official Comments and La.C.C.
Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center 453 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
As to whether the time period is prescriptive or peremptive, the Guidry court, (La.
Chalstrom v. Desselles on Behalf of Desselles 433 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Bunch v. Quinn-L Baton Rouge Partnership 424 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Jacob v. Jacob 417 So. 2d 1367 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
the Supreme Court held former C.C.
State v. Kiper 408 So. 2d 1312 La. 1982
Hall v. Hall 404 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Kennedy v. Powell 401 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Art. 2315 is peremptive); (holding that the period provided for bringing the action for disavowal under prior provisions of La.C.C.
State v. Manning 390 So. 2d 494 La. 1980
Redmon v. Redmon 391 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Guidry v. Theriot 377 So. 2d 319 La. 1979
rendered this day, we addressed the question thus presented and concluded that specification of the time limit for bringing an action in the same statute that created the right of action, is not the sole test of peremption as distinguished from prescription.