Cited by

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

141 citing documents.

Biggers v. Allstate Ins. Co. 886 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Marsh Engineering, Inc. v. Ernest L. Parker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Hebert v. Doctors Mem’l Hosp.
Marsh Engineering Inc. v. Parker 883 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
McCafferty v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office 880 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Tower Credit, Inc. v. Tullier 885 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
The phrase “as long as the suit is pending” which is used in article 3463
Randazzo v. LA. STATE UNIV. HEALTH SCIENC. 879 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Although the trial court recognized the unfairness of the situation presented, the trial court rejected Randazzo's argument that an exception could be created, citing In re Medical Review Panel for the Claim of Moses, 00-2643 *743 (La.5/25/01)
Randazzo v. State, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center 879 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Although the trial court recognized the unfairness of the situation presented, the trial court rejected Randaz-zo’s argument that an exception could be created, citing In re Medical Review Panel for the Claim of Moses, 00-2643 *743 (La.5/25/01)
Mark M. Simmons v. La. Dept. of Pub. Saf. & Correct., Office of Motor Vehicles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Simmons v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles 872 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Richard v. Tenet Health Systems, Inc. 871 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
NOTES [1] In their brief, to argue that interruption of prescription in medical malpractice cases is governed by the general civil code articles.
Eastin v. Entergy Corp. 865 So. 2d 49 La. 2004
Pena v. Williams 867 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), ().
Cadogan v. McClanahan 861 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
the Supreme Court stated: La.
CHURCH POINT v. Acadia Parish Police Jury 849 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
our Supreme Court discussed the criteria outlined in Guillory, supra, for distinguishing between peremption and prescription, stating: "In Guillory v. Avoyelles Railway Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court found peremptive the three-month period to file suit when contesting the validity of a property tax electi
David v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc. 849 So. 2d 38 La. 2003
reaff'd in State Board of Ethics v. Ourso, XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.4/9/03), .
Conerly v. State 858 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
see also Guillory v. Avoyelles Railway Co., 104 La.
Times Picayune Pub. Corp. v. BD. OF SUP'RS 845 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State Bd. of Ethics v. Ourso 842 So. 2d 346 La. 2003
Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), ().
Jennings American Legion Hospital v. Jones 829 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Hebert v. Doctors Mem’l Hosp.
State Bd. of Ethics v. Ourso 838 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
In Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 12-13 (La.10/21/97), , the supreme court discussed the difference between peremption and prescription: Peremption differs from prescription in several respects.
Turner v. Ostrowe 828 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
White v. West Carroll Hosp., Inc., , 721 n. 7 (La.1986).
Campo v. Correa 828 So. 2d 502 La. 2002
Dauterive Contractors, Inc. v. Landry and Watkins 811 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
However, prescriptive and peremptive periods are not the same thing in terms of their respective applications: Peremption differs from prescription in several respects.
Schulingkamp v. Ochsner Clinic 813 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Perez v. Trahant 806 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Baham v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans 792 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Huffman v. Goodman 784 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Davis v. Coregis Ins. Co. 789 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Hoffpauir v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrections 762 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
the court stated: Peremption differs from prescription in several respects.
Boutte v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Serv. 759 So. 2d 45 La. 2000
Ewing v. State Ex Rel Dept. of Transp. 757 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
In Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 12-13 (La.10/21/97); , the supreme court discussed the difference between peremption and prescription: Peremption differs from prescription in several respects.
Liner v. Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent DePaul, Inc. 753 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Coleman v. Acromed Corp. 764 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Plaintiffs argue that a timely-filed suit pending against one solidary obligor continues the interruption of prescription as to all purported solidary obligors, citing White v. West Carroll Hospital, Inc., (La.
Willis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 747 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
1 Cir.1985),writ granted, reversed and remanded an other grounds
Acosta v. Campbell 744 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Chaney v. State Through Dept. of Health & Human Resources
Exxon Pipeline v. La Public Service Com'n 728 So. 2d 855 La. 1999
In Re Medical Review Panel Proc. Vaidyanathan 719 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Wilkes v. Carroll 704 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Plaintiffs further argue that a timely filed suit pending against one solidary obligor continues the interruption of prescription as to all purported solidary obligors, citing White v. West Carroll Hospital, Inc.
Reeder v. North 701 So. 2d 1291 La. 1997
Terrel v. Perkins 704 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Townsley v. Brierty 702 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
State v. McInnis Bros. Const. 701 So. 2d 937 La. 1997
(quoting Guillory and then noting that "[o]ther statutes with both characteristics...
Claim of Aron 695 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Angelo v. Billings 690 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
for the proposition that because the Chehar-dy suit was filed before the Burns suit was dismissed, prescription was interrupted ren *1018 dering the Chehardy suit timely.
Whitnell v. Silverman 686 So. 2d 23 La. 1996
Crier , which was decided on rehearing, insofar as this court's interpretation of La.R.S.
Reeder v. North 683 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Oyefodun v. Spears 669 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Smith v. Fruehauf Trailer Operations 666 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Patrick's Hosp., Chaney v. State, through DHHR
Dowell v. Hollingsworth 649 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
[8] -25 (La.1986); Chaney v. State, Department of Health and Human Resources, Medical Review Panel for Claim of Milton, (La.App.
Mancuso v. Siegel 646 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
| sin making this determination