DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ray v. Alexandria Mall, 434 So. 2d 1083.

181 citing documents.

  • Henderson v. SNL Distribution Services, Inc. 89 So. 3d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed whether a 1 ^subsequent pleading would relate back to the original pleading when the subsequent pleading adds or changes a defendant.
  • Hunter v. Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College Ex Rel. Louisiana Health Care Services Center for University … 82 So. 3d 268 La. 2012
  • Joseph v. North American Risk Services 86 So. 3d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    App. 4 Cir. 12/14/05), , this Court outlined the criteria adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court for determining whether an amendment under La.
  • Stewart v. Continental Casualty Co. 79 So. 3d 1047 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Paul Property & Liability Ins., (1983), or adding a plaintiff, Giroir [v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Div. of Hospitals, ], sup ra, if certain conditions are satisfied.
  • Hines v. BROWNING-FERRIS, INC. 73 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Paul Property & Liability Ins., this Court established the following criteria for determining whether art. 1153 allows an amendment which changes the identity of the party or parties sued to relate back to the date of filing of the original petition: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set fort
  • Bates v. City of Shreveport 69 So. 3d 1205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    art. 1153; Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, supra; Smith v. Kaye’s Food Market, 38,518 (La.App.2d Cir.5/19/04), , writs denied, 04-1498 (La.10/1/04), ; 04-1560 (La.10/1/04), ; Gaines v. Bruscato, 30,340 (La.App.2d Cir.4/8/98), , writ denied, 98-1272 (La.6/26/98), .
  • Laforte v. Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. 65 So. 3d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Paul Property and Liability Ins., wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court established four criteria for determining whether La.
  • Hermo v. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. 56 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    ( ; Leachman v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 694 F.2d 1301 (D.C.Cir.1982); Hockett v. American Airlines, 357 F.Supp.
  • Willis v. TMB Partnership 56 So. 3d 324 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • TCC Contractors, Inc. v. Hospital Service District No. 3 of the Parish of Lafourche 52 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    It is thus “tantamount to assertion of a new cause of action which would have otherwise prescribed.”
  • Thomas v. Tri-State Foods, L.P. 55 So. 3d 117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Paul Property & Liability Ins.
  • Scaglione v. Juneau 40 So. 3d 127 La. 2010
  • Estate of Robinson v. Continental Casualty Co. 31 So. 3d 1194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    1 the Louisiana Supreme Court found that |Rthe amended petition related back to the date of the filing of the original petition.
  • Mary Ann Charles Calbert v. Orlando J. Batiste La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Appellees, DOTD and LCG, contend that before prescription can be interrupted
  • Calbert v. Batiste 23 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Appellees, DOTD and LCG, contend that before prescription can be interrupted
  • Burg v. LIVING CENTERS EAST INC. 28 So. 3d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    In Renfroe v. State through Department of Transportation and Development, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), , the Supreme Court reiterated the four-part test, to determine if a supplemental petition relates back to the original petition for prescription purposes: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original petition; (2) The purported substitute defendant must have received notice of the institution
  • Hoff v. LOUISIANA SUPERDOME 24 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    Paul Property & Liability Ins., , (La.
  • Naghi v. Brener 17 So. 3d 919 La. 2009
    Paul Property & Liability Ins., (1983), or adding a plaintiff, Giroir, supra, if certain conditions are satisfied.
  • Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 21 So. 3d 186 La. 2009
    regarding amended petitions adding or substituting defendants, we set forth these factors in Giroir : "[a]n amendment adding or substituting a plaintiff should be allowed to relate back if (1) the amended claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2
  • Gardner v. T & T BARGE AND MARINE, INC. 11 So. 3d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Levingston v. City of Shreveport 4 So. 3d 942 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    1 In Ray v. Alexandria Mall, Through St Paul Property & Liability Ins., the Louisiana Supreme Court established the following criteria for determining whether La.
  • Boquet Ex Rel. Billiot v. SWDI, LLC 992 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Chisley v. Smith 986 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Paul Property & Liability Ins., the supreme court established four criteria to be utilized in determining whether an amendment changing the identity of the party sued relates back to the date of filing of the original petition: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading.
  • Denoux v. Vessel Management Services, Inc. 983 So. 2d 84 La. 2008
    -87 (La.1983) (emphasis added).
  • Hammell v. GICILI 978 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Hodges v. Republic Western Ins.
  • Wheat v. Nievar 984 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Additionally, Mr. Wheat, asserts that the amended petition related back to the date of the timely filing of the original petition because the claim in question arose from the same transaction or occurrence and the Sheriff's Office had sufficient notice.
  • Edwards v. Alexander 960 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    the supreme court established four criteria to be used in determining whether an amendment changing the identity of the party sued relates back to the date of filing of the original petition: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading.
  • Gambel v. U-PARK SYSTEMS OF LOUISIANA, INC. 952 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
  • Matranga v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 948 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Specifically, in Giroir , (1983), 4 which set forth four criteria in which an amendment seeking to substitute or add a plaintiff will relate back to the original demand.
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Doyle Giddings, Inc. 920 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Smith v. Kaye's Food Market, 38,518 (La.App.2d Cir.05/19/04), , writs denied, 04-1560, 04-1498 (La.10/01/04), , 1008; Gaines v. Bruscato, 30,340 (La.
  • Todd v. Tate 928 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Paul Property and Liability Insurance, the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the necessary criteria for determining whether an amendment relates back to the filing of an original petition: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; ls(2) The purported substitute defendant must h
  • Hodges v. Republic Western Ins. Co. 921 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    outlined the following criteria for determining whether under Article 1153 an amendment that changes the identity of a defendant will be allowed to relate back: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) The purported substitute defenda
  • Kinchen v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 923 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • Winford v. Conerly Corp. 897 So. 2d 560 La. 2005
    Paul Property & Liability Ins., ("As eloquently stated by the late Henry McMahon, one of the chief redactors of the new Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, `The new code embodies procedural rules designed to permit the trial of a case to serve as [the] search for the truth, and to have [the] decision based on the substantive law appli
  • Assensoh v. Diamond Nails 897 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Rejecting the plaintiff's argument that Clark Taylor should be held personally liable, we reasoned: in which the plaintiff was permitted to amend her petition to name the proper party defendant shortly after the original petition was filed — albeit after prescription had run.
  • Taylor v. LSU Medical Center 892 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    More importantly, that correspondence reveals significant notice to LSUHSC within the prescriptive period, may prevent the prescription bar which it is now urging.
  • Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Safeguard Storage Properties, L.L.C. 894 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • Unwired Telecom v. Parish of Calcasieu 903 So. 2d 392 La. 2005
    Paul Property & Liability Ins., (holding that procedural rules are designed to permit the trial of a case to search for the truth and to have a decision based on substantive law rather than upon the technical rules of procedure).
  • Joseph Leger v. Savoy Memorial Foundation, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Paul Property & Liability Ins., the Louisiana Supreme Court established the criteria for determining when an amendment to add or substitute a party relates back to the original petition to defeat prescription.
  • Marchand v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CAS. INS. 897 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    I further find that the substitution of Ascension Marine Tournaments, Inc. for Ascension Marine, such that said substitution relates back to the original filing naming Ascension Marine, Inc. See LSA-C.C.P.
  • Melerine v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. 882 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    the Supreme Court established the following criteria to determine whether Article 1153 allows an amendment which changes the identity of the party or parties to be sued to relate back to the date of the filing of the original petition: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or oc
  • McCafferty v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office 880 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • Smith v. Kaye's Food Market 874 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    Sutton v. Short Stop Hamburger, 31,841 (La.App.2d Cir.05/05/99), , and Cohen v. Brookshire Bros., Inc., 01-1159 (La.App.
  • Perkins v. Willie 878 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    our Louisiana Supreme Court examined Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), as well as federal jurisprudence and established four criteria for determining whether La.Code Civ.
  • Nguyen v. Fok 867 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    the Louisiana Supreme Court established the criteria for determining when an amendment to add or substitute a party relates back to the original petition to defeat prescription.
  • Gallina v. Hero Lands Co. 859 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Paul Property and Liability Ins., ).
  • Morgan v. Investment Cars Unlimited, Inc. 843 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    It urged that the amended petition did not relate back to the original (timely) : “The purported substitute defendant must not be a wholly new or unrelated defendant.” Counsel for Ms. Morgan argued at the hearing on the exception that he originally sued two defendants: the first, Investment Cars, was totally unrelated to the store, but the second, Southeast Foods, was clarified and corre
  • Hebert v. Calahan 839 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Morris v. Westside Transit Line 841 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    In support of the argument that the amending petitions filed in this case relate *925 back to the date of the filing of the original petition
  • Bordelon v. Medical Center of Baton Rouge 836 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    The Bordelons also seek a determination from this court that the amended petition for damages in the second suit that added Dr. Zaruski as defendant meets the criteria *415 -87 (La.1983), [10] and thus relates back to the date of filing of the original petition in the second suit.