Cited by

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

181 citing documents.

Brown v. City of New Orleans 580 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
After Tate's comments, 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 the original petition: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading
Trosclair v. Cohen 576 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 572 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Paul Property & Liability Ins.
Moon v. Shreveport Associates 571 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
*801 Following a the lower court sustained SALP's exception of prescription and dismissed the claims of plaintiffs.
Findley v. City of Baton Rouge 570 So. 2d 1168 La. 1990
The court concluded that the criteria for applying Article 1153, had not been met.
Caywood v. Gaines 569 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
the Louisiana Supreme Court established the following criteria: (1) the amended claim must arise out of the same occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) the purported substi *97 tute defendant must have received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in mainta
Hernandez v. Plaquemines Parish Sch. Bd. 563 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that C.C.P.
Spencer-Wallington, Inc. v. Service Merchandise 562 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Heimann v. GEN. CINEMA CORP. OF LA 559 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
in which 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 sub
Abercrombie v. VP PIERRET REALTY & CONST. CO. 532 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
established four criteria for determining whether an amendment which changes the identity of a party relates back to the date of filing of original petition, as follows: "(1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) The purported substitu
Presley v. Smith 527 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Walker v. Self-Service Storage & Mini Warehouses, Inc. 519 So. 2d 771 La. 1988
Walker v. Self-Service Storage & Miniwarehouses, Inc. 517 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
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.
Butler v. Baber 512 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Randall v. Feducia 507 So. 2d 1237 La. 1987
and Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals, we established the guidelines for determining whether an amended petition adding a new party relates back to the date of filing of the original petition.
Pontiff v. Bailey 509 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
the court applied La.C.C.P.
Burton v. Foret 498 So. 2d 706 La. 1986
holds that an amending petition, which changes the identity of a defending party or parties, relates back to the original date of filing when: the same transaction or occurrence is involved; there is no prejudice to the substitute defendant; and no new cause of action is asserted.
Barnes v. Wall Shipyard 498 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
established the following criteria for determining whether La.C.C.P.
Bertrand v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 491 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
a defendant was added by an amendment.
Cortinez v. Handford 490 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
In sustaining the exception of prescription, and held that because the plaintiff had not offered evidence at the hearing on the exception it was not established that Karo, Inc. must have received notice of the institution of the action or that Karo, Inc. was not a wholly new or unrelated defendant, two the criteria established by the Ray case for allow
Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hosp. 486 So. 2d 717 La. 1986
-87 (La.1983) this Court enunciated four factors which must be satisfied in order for a subsequent amendment to relate back to the date of the filing of the original petition.
Bankston v. B & H Air Tools, Inc. 486 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Illidge v. Southern American Insurance Co. 484 So. 2d 131 La. 1986
Case remanded to Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Ray v. Alexandria Mall, La., ; Baker v. Payne and Keller, La., ; Reeves v. Globe Indemnity, 185 La.
Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hosp. 477 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Booty v. Kentwood Manor Nursing Home, Inc. 483 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
we further find that the claim relates back to the date of filing of the original petition, under LSA-C.C.P.
Catalano v. GSB Theatres of Chalmette, Inc. 480 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals 475 So. 2d 1040 La. 1985
Tate, Amendment of Pleadings in Louisiana, 43 Tul.L.Rev.
Giroir v. SOUTH LA. MEDICAL CTR., ETC. 475 So. 2d 1040 La. 1985
Stevens v. Charter Crude Oil Co. 470 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Fiorita v. Electric Coal Co. 460 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
the Louisiana Supreme Court established the following criteria for determining whether C.C.P.Art.
Lowe v. Rivers 448 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
NOTES [1] We are aware, in citing Majesty , that its holding has recently been modified to a however, we feel that Majesty's rationale remains viable as far as application to the instant factual situation is concerned, and the Ray holding is reconcilable, as will be shown.