Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bordelon's, Inc. v. Littell, 490 So. 2d 779.

13 citing documents.

Lealon Johnson v. Aecom Amentum Government Services La. 2025
3d 161, 165; Bordelon’s, (La.
Slaughter v. ARCO Chemical Company 931 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
4th Cir.1989); Bordelon's, (La.App.
Smith v. Frey 772 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
4 Cir.1989)); Bordelon’s, (La.App.
Bridges v. Bridges 692 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
It is well settled in our jurisprudence that in order to renounce prescription, the renunciation must be clear, direct and absolute, and manifested by the words of the party in whose favor prescription has run, Id.; Bordelon's, (La.App.
Settoon Marine, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. 657 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Dolese v. Harvey 649 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
As the Supreme Court stated in Lima, 595 So.2d at 631 , "renunciation requires a new promise to pay the debt, as `[a] new obligation binding on the debtor is created when a promise to pay is made after prescription has accrued.'" *102 ( quoting Bordelon's, (La.App.
Smith v. McKeller 638 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Lima v. Schmidt 595 So. 2d 624 La. 1992
4th Cir.1989); Bordelon's, (La.App.
Women's Clinic v. Watson 550 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Queen v. W. & W. CLARKLIFT, INC. 537 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Reilly v. State 533 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Art. 1841; Bordelon's, (La.App.
Bush Const. Co., Inc. v. Carr 512 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Bordelon Motors, Inc. v. Littell 490 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
For the reasons stated in the companion case of Bordelon’s Inc. v. Alma Bordelon Littell, et al., (La.App.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by