Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Whitnell v. Menville, 540 So. 2d 304.

102 citing documents.

Arnold Wayne Lee and Paula White Lee v. Green Clinic La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
Dima Jarrar Versus Michael Rockvoan and Goauto Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
App. 5 Cir. 5/30/95) (La.
John Hill and Nancy George, on Behalf of Their Daughter, Kayomoniqic George v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
Margaret S. Chouest v. Edison Chouest Offshore, Inc., Mr. & Mrs. Edison S. Chouest, Sr., Gary J. Chouest, … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
Medical Review Panel for the Claim of Richard Bush, Pcf No. 2018-01209 . La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
Ray M. Newton v. St. Tammany Fire District No. 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
Keishonna Whitney Allen in Her Capacity as Natural Tutrix for Her Minor Children, N.M.S. and D.D.A. v. the … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
App. 4 Cir. 12/3/14), ( (La.
Karen May,et Al. v. the Succession of Mayo Romero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
Category Three – Contra Non Valentem The third category of the doctrine applies “where the debtor himself has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of his cause of action[.]” (citing Plaquemines Par.
Christopher A. Bailey (D) v. Dr. Michael Loewe La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State of La, Admin Div,office of Community Develop, Disaster Recov v. Wallace L. Styron Kristy B. Styron La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
OCD-DRU indicated in its briefing to this court only the third and fourth categories of contra non valentem “need be addressed in this Appeal.” The third category of the doctrine applies “where the debtor himself has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of his cause of action ….”
Troy Templett v. State of Louisiana through Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Louisiana State Penitentiary La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Whitnel/ v. Menville, ( La.
In re Med. Review Panel of Gerard Lindquist 274 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
1986) ; Whitnell v. Menville , (La.
Faubourg Saint Charles, LLC v. Faubourg Saint Charles Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. 265 So. 3d 1153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
In Whitnell v. Menville , , 309 (La.
Daniel P. McCauley v. Dr. Malcolm Stubbs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
This third category, often referred to as the continuing treatment exception, provides the running of the prescriptive period is suspended “where the debtor himself has done 4 some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of his cause of action.” (citing Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Delta Dev.
McCauley v. Stubbs 245 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Whitnell v. Menville , , 308 (La.1989) (citing Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Delta Dev.
Kinnett v. Kinnett 243 So. 3d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Whitnell v. Menville , , 309 (La.
Karen Cohen Kinnett Versus Jarred Brandon Kinnett La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
Breland v. Willis Knighton Medical Center 212 So. 3d 724 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Felix v. Safeway Insurance Co. 183 So. 3d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2015
More particularly, he contended that prescription was suspended based on the first of the four categories of contra non valen-tem — “where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff s' action.”
Meiko Prevo v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections Division of Probation and … La. 2015
Scott v. Zaheri 157 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Nevertheless, the courts of this state have held “that where the plaintiff has raised allegations in an argument which might be sufficient to overcome a peremptory exception of prescription, he should be allowed time to amend his petition to assert such allegations, even though the claim asserted in the original petition is prescribed on its face.” discussing La.
Vagelos v. Abramson 126 So. 3d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In addition, the Louisiana Supreme Court declared that in situations “where the plaintiff has raised allegations in argument which might be sufficient to overcome a peremptory exception of prescription, he should be allowed time to amend his petition to assert such allegations, even though the claim asserted in the original petition is prescribed on its face.”
Sperandeo v. OSABAS 33 So. 3d 269 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
Wyman v. DUPEPE CONSTRUCTION 24 So. 3d 848 La. 2009
Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97)
Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 21 So. 3d 186 La. 2009
9:5628); (1986 malpractice claim arising out of alleged malpractice in 1982; citing Hebert in support of the position that the discovery rule is inapplicable to survival actions filed more than three years after malpractice); (claim arising out of treatment in 1980; suit filed 1986; distinguishes Hebert ); -08 (La.
Glenn M. Hebert v. J. Elise Shelton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Hebert v. Shelton 11 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Zoulek v. PIP America 2 So. 3d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
the Court was presented with a situation in which the plaintiff, to defeat an exception of prescription, alleged action on the part of the physician which had not been pled in the petition.
Borel v. Young 989 So. 2d 42 La. 2008
No. 1, 99-2402, p. 4 (La.4/11/00), ; Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 9, n. 3 (La.10/21/97), n. 3 ; Whitnell v. Silverman, 95-0112, p. 6 (La.12/6/96), ; Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc.
Denoux v. Vessel Management Services, Inc. 983 So. 2d 84 La. 2008
Rizer, 669 So.2d at 390-391 ; (La.
Omega Pain Mgmt. v. Omega Inst. of Health 975 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
[9] Chapital v. Guaranty Sav.
Bracken v. Payne and Keller Company, Inc. 970 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
In Re Noe 958 So. 2d 617 La. 2007
Thomas v. STATE EMPLOYEES GROUP BENEFITS 934 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Mitchell v. Terrebonne Parish School Board, 02-1021, p. 6 (La.App.
In Re Noe 916 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
In re Medical Review Proceeding of Sitzman 904 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
The Supreme Court’s latest pronouncement on the issue of prescription addressed the third category of contra non valentum and its applicability in a case such as Mr. Sitzman’s. “What we refer to as ‘the third category of contra non valen-tum ’ applies when the defendant engages in conduct which prevents the plaintiff from availing himself of his judicial remedies.”
Carter v. Haygood 892 So. 2d 1261 La. 2005
Melba Braud v. Dr. William A. Cenac La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Dr. Mayeux’s failure to make a complete disclosure to her patient prolonged this patient’s agony and recovery, while potentially insuring that she would be 11
Waguespack v. Judge 877 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[6] Chapital v. Guaranty Sav.
Mitchell v. Terrebonne Parish School Bd. 843 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
art. 934; Boudreaux v. Angelo Iafrate Construction, 02-0992 (La.App.
Morris v. Westside Transit Line 841 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
the Supreme Court indicated that the third category of contra non valentum applies when the defendant engages in conduct which prevents the plaintiff from availing himself of his judicial remedies.
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc. 824 So. 2d 1137 La. 2002
Campo v. Correa 828 So. 2d 502 La. 2002
[10] Contrary to the defendants' assertion
Jenkins v. Dyess 821 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Williams v. Holiday Inn Worldwide 816 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Patrick's Hospital, Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., supra ; Corsey v. State, through Dept. of Corrections, 375 So.2d at 1321-1322 ; but see Bouterie v. Crane, supra [Bouterie's claim did not squarely fit into any of these 4 categories but was closely analogous to the second category; therefore
Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc. 800 So. 2d 762 La. 2001
Tucker v. Lain 798 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Acosta v. Campbell, 98-2538 (La.App.
In Re Medical Review Panel, Claim of Moses 788 So. 2d 1173 La. 2001
Collum v. EA Conway Medical Center 763 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Patrick's Hospital, 89-2786 (La.5/24/90)
Liner v. Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent DePaul, Inc. 753 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000