DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Giroir v. SOUTH LA. MEDICAL CTR., ETC., 475 So. 2d 1040.

184 citing documents.

  • Howard v. Edmon 811 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth a four-part test for determining whether an amendment adding new plaintiffs would relate back to the date of the filing of the original petition.
  • Renfroe v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation & Development 809 So. 2d 947 La. 2002
    As we stated in Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Div. of Hospitals, : The fundamental purpose of prescription statutes is only to afford a defendant economic and psychological security if no claim is made timely, and to protect him from stale claims and from the loss of non-preservation of relevant proof.
  • Renfroe v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. 809 So. 2d 947 La. 2002
    As we stated in Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Div. of Hospitals, : The fundamental purpose of prescription statutes is only to afford a defendant economic and psychological security if no claim is made timely, and to protect him from stale claims and from the loss of non-preservation of relevant proof.
  • Elmer v. West Jefferson Levee Dist. 803 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Div. Of Hospitals
  • Brown v. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center 803 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Medical Ctr., , 1045 (La.1985).
  • Gorham v. HCA Health Services of La. 786 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    The leading case governing this question is Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, *352 Division of Hospitals, (La.
  • Trentecosta v. Beck 786 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals, Phillips v. Palumbo, 94-1323 (La.App.
  • Huffman v. Goodman 784 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    [13] For cases involving the addition of plaintiffs, see Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Div. of Hospitals, (La.
  • Harvill v. Arnold 777 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    In Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Div. of Hospitals, the supreme court set forth four factors to be considered when determining whether an amended petition adding or substituting a plaintiff should be allowed to relate back to the date of the filing of the original petition.
  • Delmore v. Hebert 768 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Smith v. Cutter Biological 770 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • 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)
  • Smith v. Arcadian Corp. 753 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • Baton Rouge Ass'n of School Employees, Local 100 Service Employees International Union v. East Baton Rouge Parish School … 729 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    In Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals, the supreme court established the following criteria which would allow an amendment adding a plaintiff to relate back to an original petition: 1) the amended claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; 2) the defendant either knew or should have
  • BATON ROUGE ASS'N v. School Bd. 729 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    In Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals, the supreme court established the following criteria which would allow an amendment adding a plaintiff to relate back to an original petition: 1) the amended claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; 2) the defendant either knew or should have
  • Thomas v. Connolly 726 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Layman v. City of New Orleans 753 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Plaintiff-appellant also contends that the substitution of Hufcor as a party defendant should be allowed to relate back to the filing of the original petition under Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Div. of Hospitals, and LSA-C.C.P.
  • Thomas v. SISTER OF CHARITY 713 So. 2d 466 La. 1998
    Ctr., which held that a supplemental petition for damages, filed by the tort victim's legitimate children more than one year after her death, related back under La.Code Civ.
  • Traylor v. Reliance Ins. Co. 715 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    The respondent asserts that: "The respondent intervenor relies upon the Supreme Court decision in Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Div. of Hospitals, (La.
  • Distinguished Jeansonne v. Canal Indemnity Insurance Co. 714 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    The facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts in Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, et al., and Moore v. Gencorp, Inc.
  • Small v. Baloise Ins. Co. of America 753 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    1044 (La.1985); Lirette v. Feagin, 95-1997 (La.App.
  • Gaines v. Bruscato 712 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    See Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals
  • Terrel v. Perkins 704 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Hudnall v. Volk 702 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Medical Ctr., Etc., is dispositive of the prescription plea.
  • Watson v. Parsons 700 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    the Louisiana Supreme Court established a four part test for determining whether an amended petition adding a new plaintiff relates back under LSA-C.C.P.
  • Thomas v. Sister of Charity of the Incarnate Word 694 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Tureaud v. Acadiana Nursing Home 696 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • West v. Parish of Jefferson 685 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Giroir v. South Louisiana *375 Medical Center
  • Allison v. Griffin Industries 676 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Lirette v. Feagin 667 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Medical Center, the Supreme Court held that an 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) the defendant either knew or should have known of the existence and involve
  • Rowsey v. Jones 655 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Medical Ctr., , 1045 (La.1985).
  • Phillips v. Palumbo 648 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    the Louisiana Supreme Court established a four part test for determining whether an amended petition adding a new plaintiff relates back under La.C.C.P.
  • Merrit v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund 639 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Medical Center, Etc., which sets out a four part test to determine whether an amendment relates back to the date of the original petition.
  • Baker v. Conagra Broiler Co. 640 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Centanni v. Ford Motor Co. 636 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Medical Center, , 1045 (La.
  • Southside Civic Ass'n v. Warrington 635 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    See Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals, -44 (La.1985); -09 (La.App.
  • Moore v. Gencorp, Inc. 633 So. 2d 1268 La. 1994
  • Riddle v. Simmons 626 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Monroe Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Hospital Corp. of Am. 622 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Medical Ctr., -609 (La.App.
  • Taylor v. Giddens 618 So. 2d 834 La. 1993
    1st Cir.1984), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, on other grounds, [both actions]; (La.App.
  • Morton v. Ray 611 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    Medical Ctr., Etc., held that a post-prescription amendment adding or substituting a plaintiff will relate back to the timely-filed original petition if: (1) the amended claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) the defendant either knew or should have known of the
  • Rogers v. Louisiana Oil & Tire Co. 608 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Medical Ctr., Etc., (La.
  • Moisant v. Dominick 609 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    to determine whether an amended petition related back to the date of the filing of the original petition.
  • Nguyen v. Pausina 607 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    The Court concluded that the amended petition, even though filed more than two years after the accident, met the test of Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, etc., and related back to the original filing date.
  • Thibaut v. Thibaut 607 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    In Spencer-Wallington v. Service Merchandise , this court utilized *609 the criteria set forth by the supreme court in Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals, to determine if the plaintiffs UTACPL claim had been timely filed.
  • Montminy v. Jobe 600 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Faraldo v. Hanover Ins. Co. 600 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Mitchell v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 596 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Medical Ctr., Etc., explains the criteria for determining when an amendment adding a plaintiff relates back to the time of the filing of the original petition, such that the running of prescription is avoided.
  • Mitchell v. STATE, THROUGH DOTD 596 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Medical Ctr., Etc., (La.