Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hosp., 486 So. 2d 717.

141 citing documents.

Jrb Holdings, L.L.C. and/or Jrb Holdings, L.L.C. in Its Representative Capacity for Mst, L.L.C., and/or John Ray Broussard … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
9:5605 (internal citations omitted): Because it is well established that “nothing may interfere with the running of a peremptive period,” Hebert [v. Doctors Memorial Hosp., ], and avoiding the peremptive period certainly interferes with the running of that period, relation back of an amended or supplemental pleading adding a plaintiff is not allowed to avoid the running of a peremptive period such as that found in La.
Douglas Bienvenu v. 1 and 2 87184 C/W John Doe v. 1 and 2 87515 La. 2024
Tommy M. Ardoin, Jr. as (In His Capacity as the of the Succession of Tommy M. Ardoin, Sr.) … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
William Cook and Renee Soileau v. Carl Swayze Rigby, M.D. and Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Harold Breaux, Sr. v. Terry B. Soileau La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Betancourt v. Trahan 274 So. 3d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
In Naquin , 950 So.2d at 668 (quoting Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hospital , ) (emphasis removed), the supreme court explained the difference between peremption and prescription: Although prescription prevents the enforcement of a right by legal action, it does not terminate the natural obligation; peremption, however, extinguishes or destroys the right ( La.
Amy L. Betancourt v. Marcus Trahan D/B/A Redmarque Construction,llc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
In Naquin, 950 So.2d at 668 () (emphasis removed), the supreme court explained the difference between peremption and prescription: Although prescription prevents the enforcement of a right by legal action, it does not terminate the natural obligation; peremption, however, extinguishes or destroys the right (La.
In re Med. Review Panel of Gerard Lindquist 274 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Taylor v. Hanson North America 186 So. 3d 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
-21 (La.1986) (statutorily abrogated on other grds).
State v. Broyard 183 So. 3d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
the Court held that “an action or suit is ‘pending’ from its inception until the rendition of final judgment.” The Hebert court consulted Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979), which defined “pendency” as the “state of an action, etc.,- after it has begun and before the final disposition of it.” Id., 486 So
Wells v. Webb 125 So. 3d 520 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Milbert v. Answering Bureau, Inc. 120 So. 3d 678 La. 2013
we held “that both the one-year and three-year periods set forth in LSA-R.S.
Santiago v. Tulane University Hospital & Clinic 115 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
LSA-CC art. 3461; Hebert [v. Doctors Memorial Hospital, ] 486 So.2d at 723 .
Jenkins v. Starns 85 So. 3d 612 La. 2012
may be renounced, interrupted, or suspended; and contra non valentem applies an exception to the statutory prescription period....” 97-0239 at 12-13, 701 So.2d at 1298 ().
Marvin W. Buxton v. William Corbello La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
in support of his argument that the workers’ compensation suit was “pending” until it was final and no longer subject to judicial scrutiny.
Robert v. Robert Management Co. 82 So. 3d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Buxton v. Corbello 82 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
in support of his argument that the workers’ compensation suit was “pending” until it was final and no longer subject to judicial scrutiny.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. Smith 71 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
(partially su-perceded by statute on an unrelated issue), the court held that the lawsuit against the hospital was “pending” from the moment it was filed in 1976 until it was dismissed by a final judgment of the court in 1984.
Barcia v. Louisiana Medical Malpractice Insurance Co. 67 So. 3d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
this Court held that La.Rev.Stat.
Marenghi v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 62 So. 3d 847 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
See, Borel v. Young, 2007-419 (La.7/1/08), ; |9 (La.1986).
Hammond ex rel. Estate of Tillman v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc. 38 So. 3d 1270 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
In Re Manus 40 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
Naghi v. Brener 17 So. 3d 919 La. 2009
After the enactment of these code articles, : Peremption differs from prescription in several respects.
Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 21 So. 3d 186 La. 2009
In addition, as to newly added *199 defendants, (La.
May Yen v. Avoyelles Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
ANALYSIS The Borel decision: Prior to Borel, a consistent line of cases, held that the limitation on pursuing a medical malpractice case set forth in La.R.S.
Yen v. Avoyelles Parish Police Jury 5 So. 3d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
ANALYSIS The Borel decision: Prior to Borel , a consistent line of cases, held that the limitation on pursuing a medical malpractice case set forth in La.R.S.
Jackson v. JEFFERSON PARISH CLERK OF COURT 993 So. 2d 219 La. 2008
Borel v. Young 989 So. 2d 42 La. 2008
The court of appeal, found both time provisions prescriptive, and examined defendants' exception of prescription in light of LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Ferguson v. Sugar 988 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707, p. 9 (La.6/21/02)
Brumfield v. McElwee 976 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Stanford v. ADMINISTRATORS OF TULANE FUND 975 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
9:5628 is prescriptive or peremptive, wherein it held that both the one-year and three-year time limitations set forth in the statute were prescriptive and, therefore, were potentially susceptible to interruption or suspension.
Yen v. Avoyelles Parish Police Jury 971 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Following a hearing, the trial court denied the exception finding that prescription against the Hospital was interrupted by the timely filing of the suit against the non-medical defendants in the district court
Boyd v. Farmers Ins. Exchange 973 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Bertoniere v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2 972 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02)
Bertoniere v. JEFFERSON PARISH HOSP. 972 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02)
In Re Noe 958 So. 2d 617 La. 2007
[9] *630 Prior to the adoption of the suspension principle applicable to solidary obligors in medical malpractice cases, that prescription in medical malpractice cases could be interrupted against joint and solidary obligors pursuant to the general tort rules by the filing of a medical malpractice claim against another solidary obligor.
Naquin v. LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH GOVERNMENT 950 So. 2d 657 La. 2007
(emphasis added), quoted in State Bd.
Matherne v. Broussard 959 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
the supreme court noted that peremption statutes generally create the right of action and stipulate the delay during which the right may be exercised.
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. O'Neal Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
10/21/1997), (citing Hebert v. Doctors Mem’l Hosp., ).
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Jones 948 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 12 (La.10/21/1997), (citing Hebert v. Doctors Mem’l Hosp., ).
Borel v. Young 947 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
[2] *828 LeBreton and La.Civ.Code art. 2324(C).
Minos Borel, Sr. v. Lafayette General Medical Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2 1 In Pena, the appellate court held La.R.S.
Dark v. Marshall 945 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
(hereinafter " Doctors Hospital ").
Allie Mae Bruce v. Rapides Regional Medical Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
White v. W. Carroll Hosp., Inc.
Capitol Anesthesia Group, P.A. v. Gus Watson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
A where it was argued that a release given by the plaintiff to the defendant should be considered as having put an end to the suit.
Capitol Anesthesia Group, P.A. v. Watson 923 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
A where it was argued that a release given by the plaintiff to the defendant should be considered as having put an end to the suit.
Atlas Iron and Metal Company v. D. Warren Ashy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
10/21/1997), (citing Hebert v. Doctors Mem’l Hosp., ).
Atlas Iron and Metal Co. v. Ashy 918 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 12 (La.10/21/1997), ().
Kirby v. Field 923 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Bailey v. Khoury 891 So. 2d 1268 La. 2005
Campo v. Correa, 01-2707, p. 8 (La.6/21/02)

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by