Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jordan v. Employee Transfer Corp., 509 So. 2d 420.

100 citing documents.

Frank Scurlock v. Kurt Heitmeier, Robert Heitmeier and Eustis Insurance, Inc. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Transfer Corp., -24 (La.
Phillip Hebert and Brian Hebert v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Cnh Industrial … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Prescription does not begin to run at the first indication that the plaintiff may have suffered harm, but rather it begins to run “when plaintiff has reasonable basis to pursue claim against specific defendant.”
Maria Assunta Del Vescovo, Giulia Nasini, Giuliano Nasini and Maria Nasini, Individually and on Behalf of Their Husband … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Nohc, Inc. v. Erroll G. Williams, Assessor, Parish of Orleans; Norman White, Director of Finance for the City … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
Irvin H. Dauphine, Jr. v. Disa Global Solutions, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
(emphasis added), the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the test for what constitutes notice sufficient to mark the commencement of prescription: Prescription will not begin to run at the earliest possible indication that a plaintiff may have suffered some wrong.
Narda Matos and Altagracia Matos, on Behalf of Lidia Matos Versus Edward White, Jr., Blair Logistics, LLC and … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
Blair was served via long-arm statute on March 13, 2020, which is within one year of that prescriptive date.” In support of their argument, (La.
State Of Louisiana, Et Al. v. Louisiana Land & La. 2021
Jordan v. Employee Transfer Corporation , (La.
James Guerin v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, successor or assignee of The Traveler's Insurance Company; Exxon Mobil Corporation; … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Jordan a Employee Transfer Corp., ( La.
Blanchard v. Gerry's Place, Inc. 258 So. 3d 1024 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
Cole , 620 So.2d at 1157 , citing Jordan v. Employee Transfer Corp. , (La.
Alexander v. La. State Board of Private Investigator Examiners 211 So. 3d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Addressing the issue of the amount of information needed to commence the prescriptive period under the discovery doctrine, (La.
Estate of Shelli Belaire (Judge J. Ayo O/B/O G. M. A.) v. Crawfish Town USA La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Estate of Belaire v. Crawfish Town USA 182 So. 3d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Raborn v. Albea 144 So. 3d 1066 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Davidson v. Glenwood Resolution Authority, Inc. 108 So. 3d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 1999-2570 (La.5/16/00)
Barber v. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau 97 So. 3d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Ames v. Ohle 97 So. 3d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Cole, 620 So.2d at 1157 (Emphasis added) ().
Watters v. Department of Social Services 102 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Prescription should not be used to force a person who believes he may have been damaged in some way to rush to file suit against all parties who might have caused that damage.”
Barbe v. American Sugar Refining, Inc. 83 So. 3d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
George McCarthy v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Prescription does not begin to run at the first indication that the plaintiff may have suffered harm, but rather it begins to run ―when plaintiff has reasonable basis to pursue claim against specific defendant.‖
McCarthy v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. 82 So. 3d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Prescription does not begin to run at the first indication that the plaintiff may have suffered harm, but rather it begins to run “when plaintiff has reasonable basis to pursue claim against specific defendant.”
Oracle Oil, LLC v. EPI Consultants 77 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Oracle had to file their lawsuit against EPI by May 19, 2009 in order to prevent prescription of their negligence claims.” While we agree with the trial court that contra non valentem 3 does not apply [ fiin this case, we disagree with the trial court’s finding that Oracle should have known about the damage to the Well “all along.” the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth a test for what constitutes notice sufficient to mark the commencement of prescription: Prescription will not begin to run at th
Becker v. Murphy Oil Corp. 70 So. 3d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Del Dean David, Et Ux. v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Susan and Edward L. Wilhelm v. Mosaic Global Operations, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
David v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. 49 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 48 So. 3d 234 La. 2010
escription will not begin to run at the earliest possible indication that a plaintiff may have suffered some- wrong, and should not be used to force a person who believes he may have been damaged in some way to rush to file suit, a plaintiff is responsible to seek out those whom he believes may be responsible for a specific injury.” Id., 45 So.3d at 1001 ().
Guillot v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. 50 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc. 45 So. 3d 991 La. 2010
Charles Glisan, Et Ux. v. Michael Eaton, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Glisan v. Eaton 30 So. 3d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Glenn M. Hebert v. J. Elise Shelton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
we stated: Prescription will not begin to run at the earliest possible indication that a plaintiff may have suffered some wrong.
Hebert v. Shelton 11 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
we stated: Prescription will not begin to run at the earliest possible indication that a plaintiff may have suffered some wrong.
Gadpaille v. Thomas 990 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
4 Cir. 8/30/00), (a redhibition action based on rodent infestation and electrical and plumbing problems in a grocery store); (a redhibition action based on foundation damage not discovered until the house flooded a second time).
Sarwat Gad, M.D. v. Robert Ray Granberry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
the plaintiffs’ den flooded on two occasions approximately two months apart, and the supreme court had to decide whether prescription on their redhibition claim began to run after either the first or second incident.
Gad v. Granberry 958 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
the plaintiffs' den flooded on two occasions approximately two months apart, and the supreme court had to decide whether prescription on their redhibition claim began to run after either the first or second incident.
In Re Noe 958 So. 2d 617 La. 2007
at 6, 763 So.2d at 579-80
Eric Petry v. Sid Hebert, Sheriff La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Prescription does not begin to run at the first indication that the plaintiff may have suffered harm, but rather it begins to run “when plaintiff has reasonable basis to pursue claim against specific defendant.”
Petry v. Hebert 957 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Grefer v. Alpha Technical 901 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
The Court, clarified its application of contra non valentem, stating: Prescription will not begin to run at the earliest possible indication that a plaintiff may have suffered some wrong.
Bailey v. Khoury 891 So. 2d 1268 La. 2005
Jamie Hebert v. Calcasieu Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Hebert v. Calcasieu Parish School Board 884 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Travis Lee Stevens v. Darren Keith Bruce La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Prescription does not begin to run at the first indication that the plaintiff may have suffered harm, but rather it begins to run “when plaintiff has reasonable basis to pursue claim against specific defendant.”
Stevens v. Bruce 878 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Eastin v. Entergy Corp. 865 So. 2d 49 La. 2004
Hughes v. Olin Corp. 856 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Hazelwood Farm, Inc. v. Liberty Oil and Gas Corp. 844 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Jastram v. Associated Catholic Charities of New Orleans, Inc. 842 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that prescription begins to run, not at the earliest possible indication that the plaintiff may have suffered some wrong, but rather when the plaintiff has a reasonable basis to pursue a claim against a specific defendant.
Robin v. Allstate Ins. Co. 844 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
the supreme court explained a plaintiff's responsibility for filing suit as follows: Prescription will not begin to run at the earliest possible indication that a plaintiff may have suffered some wrong.
DIVISION PLACE PART. v. Carl E. Woodward, Inc. 806 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002