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.

  • Richard v. Jefferson Davis Nursing Home 829 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    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
  • Cohen v. Brookshire Bros. Inc. 819 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Ins., established the following criteria for determining whether article 1153 allows an amendment which changes the identity of the party defendant to relate back to the original petition: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) The
  • Drake v. Sarpy Properties, Inc. 817 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • Renfroe v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation & Development 809 So. 2d 947 La. 2002
    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
  • Renfroe v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. 809 So. 2d 947 La. 2002
    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
  • Elmer v. West Jefferson Levee Dist. 803 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    Paul Property & Liability Ins.
  • Martin v. THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE 858 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    We conclude Martin should have the opportunity to develop evidence during a hearing on the exception of prescription to address whether amendments to the petition relate back to the time of filing the original petition, and succeeding cases, whether the issue of solidarity may be raised to prove interruption of prescription, see Bankston v. B & H Air Tools, Inc., -201 (La.App.
  • Gorham v. HCA Health Services of La. 786 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    in which the court had discussed the circumstances in which a plaintiff's amended petition adding a defendant related back to the original petition.
  • Huffman v. Goodman 784 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Paul Property & Liability Ins., established the following criteria for determining whether article 1153 allows an amendment which changes the identity of the party defendant to relate back to the original petition: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) The purpor
  • Hunsucker v. Global Business Furniture 768 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    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.
  • Delmore v. Hebert 768 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    the court looked beyond the plain language of this article, recognizing that Article 1153 was based on Rule 15(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
  • Gray v. Holiday Inns, Inc. 762 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    held an amended petition which changes the identity of a party sued relates back to the filing of the original petition if four elements are satisfied.
  • Migliori v. Willows Apartments 765 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    See, Catalano v. GSB Theatres of Chalmette, Inc., (La.App.
  • Etienne v. National Auto. Ins. Co. 759 So. 2d 51 La. 2000
    Plaintiff's reliance on article 1153 is misplaced.
  • Strouse v. M & M PROPERTIES 753 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    In re Gaines v. Bruscato, 30,340 (La.App.2d Cir.04/08/98), , writ denied, 98-1272 (La.06/26/98), .
  • Houston Industries, Inc. v. Fitch 752 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    In re Gaines v. Bruscato, 30,340 (La.App.2d Cir.04/08/98), , writ denied, 98-1272 (La.06/26/98)
  • Fortenberry v. Glock, Inc.(USA) 741 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    and authorities therein.
  • Sutton v. Short Stop Hamburgers 737 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Chaney v. Coastal Cargo, Inc. 730 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • Layman v. City of New Orleans 753 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Sanders v. Schwegmann Supermarkets, 96-0849, p. 3 (La.App.
  • McGregor v. Boudreaux & Lamy 727 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • Watkins v. Karr 716 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • Gaines v. Bruscato 712 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    See Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals
  • Rowe v. Certified Security Monitoring 708 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Paul Property & Liability Ins., the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the following criteria for determining whether an amendment which changes the identity of the party or parties sued is allowed 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 occurrence s
  • Wilridge v. Capitol Manufacturing Co. 704 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    It should be pointed out that had Harseo not held itself out to be Capitol Manufacturing Company, i.e., notwithstanding the principle of equitable estoppel, Harseo may have had a
  • Bethea v. Modern Biomedical Services, Inc. 704 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • Terrel v. Perkins 704 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Sanders v. Schwegmann Supermarkets 696 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • West v. Parish of Jefferson 685 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    an untimely filed amended petition can "relate back" to a timely filed petition for damages.
  • Wallace v. Nathan 678 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    -87 (La.1983), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an amendment does relate back to the date of the filing of the original pleading provided that: (1) the amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; *599 (2) the purported substitute defendant must have
  • Hardy v. A+ Rental Inc. 674 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Payne v. Pedus Building Service Inc. 671 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    the supreme court set forth the following criteria for determining whether an amendment changing the identity of a party can relate back to the original filing date: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) The purported substit
  • Rivard v. Petroleum Transport Co., Inc. 663 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    our Supreme Court summarized the relation back doctrine for prescription purposes as to late added defendants.
  • Gebhardt v. State 652 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Plakotas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 643 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, set out the following criteria for determining whether La.C.C.P.
  • Buffinet v. Plaquemines Parish Com'n 645 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the following criteria for determining whether an amendment changing the identity of a defendant or defendants relates back to the date of the filing of the original petition pursuant to C.C.P.
  • Compeaux v. PLAISANCE INSPECTION & ENT. 639 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Ware v. Coats Co. 635 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    the Supreme Court established four criteria for determining whether an amended petition, which corrects the name of an incorrectly named defendant, relates back to the filing of the original petition for purposes of prescription and La.C.C.P.
  • Riddle v. Simmons 626 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Newton v. Ouachita Parish School Bd. 624 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    the Supreme 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
  • Taylor v. Johnson 617 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Sonnier v. NORWOOD CONST. CO., INC. 617 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    is the controlling jurisprudence for amended petitions as to late-added defendants.
  • Yarbrough v. Federal Land Bank Ass'n of Jackson 616 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    The trial court sustained Bruner's exception of prescription, finding that the amended petition did not relate back to the date of filing of the original petition under CCP Art. 1153
  • Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. 601 So. 2d 1355 La. 1992
    (While designed to protect a defendant against prejudice from lack of notification of a claim within the period of limitation, prescriptive statutes are not designed to protect a defendant against non-prejudicial pleading mistakes that his opponent makes in filing the claim within the period.); (La.
  • Montminy v. Jobe 600 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    [1] the Supreme Court formulated four prerequisites for allowing changes in the identity of the party defendant to do so: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) The purported substitute defendant must have received notice of the institu
  • Faraldo v. Hanover Ins. Co. 600 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    Tate, "Amendment of Pleadings in Louisiana," 43 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Picone v. Lyons 593 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    As an alternative, which interpreted La.C.C.P.
  • Rideaux v. South Central Bell 595 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Masson v. Champion Ins. Co. 591 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Lynn v. Berg Mechanical, Inc. 582 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Lynn argues that the 1987 first amending and supplemental petition relates back to the 1985 filing of his original petition and makes his claim for retaliatory discharge timely.