Cited by

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

102 citing documents.

Jeter v. Shamblin 750 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Dixon v. LA STATE UNIV. MEDICAL CENTER 750 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Ainsworth v. Bulloch 749 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Patrick’s Hospital, supra
Southern v. Bank One of Louisiana, NA 740 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Acosta v. Campbell 744 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Morgan v. Moulder 740 So. 2d 643 La. 1999
Evans v. Canadianoxy Offshore Production Co. 730 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
One justice of the supreme court has expressed the view, in a (La.
In Re Medical Review Panel Proc. Vaidyanathan 719 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Anderson v. Beauregard Memorial Hosp. 709 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Reeder v. North 701 So. 2d 1291 La. 1997
Bossier v. Ramos 698 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Kavanaugh v. Long 698 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Whitnell v. Silverman 686 So. 2d 23 La. 1996
and, regarding plaintiffs' claim in an amended petition for failure to disclose, "[t]he trial court correctly concluded that the doctor did not prevent timely filing of plaintiff's action intentionally, fraudulently, or by ill practice."
Chapital v. Guaranty Savings & Homestead Ass'n 681 So. 2d 1307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Caro v. Bradford White Corp. 678 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Fontenot v. ABC Ins. Co. 674 So. 2d 960 La. 1996
Patrick's Hospital, supra
Johnson v. Concordia Bank & Trust Co. 671 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Patrick's Hospital, Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., [ ]; 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
Rizer v. American Sur. & Fid. Ins. Co. 669 So. 2d 387 La. 1996
Tassin v. City of Westwego 668 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Patrick’s Hosp., the court explained []: The doctrine applies in four general situations: (1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff’s action; (2) where there was some condition coupled with a contract or connected with the proceedings which prevented
Smith v. Fruehauf Trailer Operations 666 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Patrick's Hosp., Chaney v. State, through DHHR
Masters v. Fields 666 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Castaneda v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n 657 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Delta Development Company, Inc., (La.
Doe v. Roman Catholic Church 656 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
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
Whitnell v. Silverman 646 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
App. 4 Cir.1988) writ granted reversed and remanded affirmed (La.App.
Pace v. STATE THROUGH LA. STATE EMP. RET. SYSTEM 648 So. 2d 1302 La. 1995
Nordgren v. Trojan Contractors, Inc. 648 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
2nd Cir.1993) writ denied
Abbott & Meeks v. De La Vergne 643 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Compeaux v. PLAISANCE INSPECTION & ENT. 639 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Patrick's Hospital, 564 So.2d at 674 ( [La.1989]).
Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 636 So. 2d 211 La. 1994
leave intact our traditional rules of tolling or contra non valentem with respect to cases in which the doctor concealed or intentionally failed to disclose facts which would have given a patient notice of malpractice...."); (Lemmon, J., concurring); (La.App.
Wimberly v. Gatch 635 So. 2d 206 La. 1994
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
Hillman v. Akins 631 So. 2d 1 La. 1994
LeBlanc v. Meza 620 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Taylor v. Giddens 618 So. 2d 834 La. 1993
Patrick's Hospital, supra
Beckham v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
the supreme court reaffirmed that the prescriptive periods for medical malpractice actions are subject to interruption in the same way as are other solidary obligations.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Ward 612 So. 2d 964 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Delta Development Company, Inc., Rajnowski v. St.
Gulf States Land & Dev. Inc. v. Ouachita Nat. Bank in Monroe 612 So. 2d 1031 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
4th Cir.1990); Juneau v. Hartford Ins.
Winder v. Avet 613 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
The cases cited by the defendants, (on rehearing), are inapposite to the facts of this case.
Reed v. St. Charles General Hospital 602 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
White v. WEST CARROLL HOSP., INC. 598 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
In Re Medical Review Panel for Claim of Milton 593 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Whitnell v. Silverman 592 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Milton v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 589 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Kinnison v. Adatto 593 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
The majority opinion in Rajnowski, supra, does not indicate a
Broussard v. Sears Roebuck and Co. 568 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Spruiell v. Ludwig 568 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
Harlan v. Roberts 565 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Trainor v. Young 561 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Rajnowski v. St. Patrick's Hosp. 564 So. 2d 671 La. 1990
Noggarath v. Fisher 557 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Rajnowski v. ST. PARTICK'S HOSPITAL OF LAKE CHARLES 551 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
More recently, the Court was again presented with the question of whether the third category of the doctrine tolls the statute's prescriptive period.