Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Findley v. City of Baton Rouge, 570 So. 2d 1168.

54 citing documents.

Cynthia Bryan, Aubry Bryan, Jr., Aunya Bryan, and Glenda Bryan v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation as the … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Malikia Swan Tiffany Higgins v. Sheriff Jay Russell Deputy Chris Colvin Deputy McFarland Richwood High School Ouachita Parish … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
2-Long, LLC and Composite Architectural Design Systems, LLC v. Barney Arceneaux La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
3d at 695, citing Findley Y. City of Baton Rouge, - 71 ( La.
Randall Kling v. Troy Hebert Ernest P. Legier, Jr., in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of the … La. 2024
art. 421); Theriot, 376 So.2d at 953; (La.
Brigitte Taylor Haynes v. Tropicana Entertainment LLC D/B/A The Belle of Baton Rouge La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
See Findley v. City of *Baton Rouge, ( La.
Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Randall J. Hebert & Associates, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
Like the plaintiff in Renfroe, Liberty Mutual relies on the Supreme Court’s and asserts that notice is not required upon a showing of an “identity of interests” between SMEDA and St.
Collins v. Home Depot, U.S.A. Inc. 215 So. 3d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
In addressing the fourth criteria of the test established in Ray , plaintiffs, (La.
Hunt v. Louisiana Municipal Risk Management Agency 176 So. 3d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
L Plaintiff asserts that the application of the “relation back” concept found in La.Code Civ.P.
Alexis Hunt v. Louisiana Municipal Risk Management Agency La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
7 the City of Marksville, is the party responsible for paying any judgment rendered against the City of Marksville with regards to this automobile accident.” Further, she argues that the City and LMRMA have “identity of interest that exists between them[.]” In support of her contention, and Allstate Insurance Co. v. Doyle Giddings, Inc., which was referenced by the trial court.
Stanley Savoie v. Calcasieu Parish Sheriff Office (City of Lake Charles) La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
determined that notice on the incorrect defendant may be imputed to the substitute defendant under certain circumstances; those circumstances are not present in this case.
Savoie v. Calcasieu Parish Sheriff Office 157 So. 3d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
determined that notice on the incorrect defendant may be *1282 imputed to the substitute defendant under certain circumstances; those circumstances are not present in this case.
Fred Bulliard v. the City of St. Martinville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
In support of his first argument, Mr. Bulliard relies on a factually similar case, in which the 4 supreme court held that the plaintiff’s amended petition, naming the Baton Rouge Recreation and Park Commission (BREC) as defendant, related back to the filing date of his original petition against the City of Baton Rouge.
Bulliard v. City of St. Martinville 139 So. 3d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In support of his first argument, Mr. Bulliard relies on a factually similar case, in which the ^supreme court held that the plaintiffs amended petition, naming the Baton Rouge Recreation and Park Commission (BREC) as defendant, related back to the filing date of his *1273 original petition against the City of Baton Rouge.
McKamey v. New Orleans Public Facility Management, Inc. 140 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
(where the court held that when there is an identity of interests and a close business relationship between the original timely-sued defendants and added defendant, the amended petition relates back for the purposes of prescription under La.Code Civ.
Roland Douglas Walet v. Southern Theatres Family Holding, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
noted “[t]he gravamen of the second criteria is prevention of prejudice to the defendant in preparing and conducting its defense.” The Findley court stressed “[w]hile designed to protect a defendant against prejudice from lack of notification of a claim within the period of limitation, pre
Walet v. Southern Theatres Family Holding, LLC 116 So. 3d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Louisiana Supreme Court in *687 noted “[t]he gravamen of the second criteria is prevention of prejudice to the defendant in preparing and conducting its defense.” The Findley court stressed “[w]hile designed to protect a defendant against prejudice from lack of notification of a claim within the period of limitation, prescriptive st
Northa Lee Holmes v. Triad Hospitality D/B/A Clarion Hotel La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
discussed the second Ray criteria, stating as follows: The gravamen of the second criteria is prevention of prejudice to the defendant in preparing and conducting its defense.
Holmes v. Triad Hospitality 89 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
discussed the second Ray criteria, stating as follows: The gravamen of the second criteria is prevention of prejudice to the defendant in preparing and conducting its defense.
Kevin v. City of Oberlin 60 So. 3d 1205 La. 2011
Hoff v. LOUISIANA SUPERDOME 24 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 21 So. 3d 186 La. 2009
Tate, Amendment of Pleadings in Louisiana, 43 Tul.L.Rev.
Distinguished Gardner v. T & T BARGE AND MARINE, INC. 11 So. 3d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Levingston v. City of Shreveport 4 So. 3d 942 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Edwards v. Alexander 960 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
where the plaintiff, intending to sue the owner of a public park, mistakenly sued the city of Baton Rouge instead of a separate legal entity, BREC, over which the city had an element of control.
Fuselier v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 940 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Doyle Giddings, Inc. 920 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Winford v. Conerly Corp. 897 So. 2d 560 La. 2005
("A fundamental purpose of prescriptive statutes is to protect a defendant from stale claims and from the loss or non-preservation of relevant proof."); See also Ray v. Alexandria Mall, through St.
Melerine v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. 882 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Bell v. Kreider 858 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Morris v. Westside Transit Line 841 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
In support of the argument that the amending petitions filed in this case relate *925 back to the date of the filing of the original petition
Richard v. Jefferson Davis Nursing Home 829 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
However, notice is not technically necessary, and that the real issue is whether the defendants would be prejudiced by the lack of notice.
Cohen v. Brookshire Bros. Inc. 819 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
discussed in detail the second Ray criteria, stating as follows: The gravamen of the second criteria is prevention of prejudice to the defendant in preparing and conducting its defense.
Renfroe v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation & Development 809 So. 2d 947 La. 2002
However, notice is not technically necessary, and that the real issue is whether the defendants would be prejudiced by the lack of notice.
Renfroe v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. 809 So. 2d 947 La. 2002
However, notice is not technically necessary, and that the real issue is whether the defendants would be prejudiced by the lack of notice.
Huffman v. Goodman 784 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
the supreme court described the relationship between the original defendant and the defendant sought to be added as an "identity of interest."
Smith v. Cutter Biological 770 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
[11] quoted at page 10 of plaintiffs' brief refers to an "original timely pleading."
Migliori v. Willows Apartments 765 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
See, Catalano v. GSB Theatres of Chalmette, Inc., (La.App.
Sutton v. Short Stop Hamburgers 737 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Watkins v. Karr 716 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
4th Cir. 5/8/96), , writ denied, 96-1945 (La.1996), ().
Gaines v. Bruscato 712 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Baker v. Conagra Broiler Company, supra ; (La.
Sanders v. Schwegmann Supermarkets 696 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
West v. Parish of Jefferson 685 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
In support of their position, plaintiffs cite
Hardy v. A+ Rental Inc. 674 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
the Supreme Court discussed the meaning of the term "wholly new or unrelated defendant" and the type of relationship that is necessary to satisfy the requirements of article 1153.
Compeaux v. PLAISANCE INSPECTION & ENT. 639 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Royal Nissan, Inc. v. Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission 636 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Ware v. Coats Co. 635 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Subsequent to Ray , discussed the Ray criteria along with La.C.C.P.
Riddle v. Simmons 626 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Newton v. Ouachita Parish School Bd. 624 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. 601 So. 2d 1355 La. 1992
(While designed to protect a defendant against prejudice from lack of notification of a claim within the period of limitation, prescriptive statutes are not designed to protect a defendant against non-prejudicial pleading mistakes that his opponent makes in filing the claim within the period.); Ray v.
Montminy v. Jobe 600 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992