Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 633 So. 2d 1268.

46 citing documents.

Juanita Rodriguez, Alejandro Fernandez and Wilmer Godoy Versus American Alternative Insurance Company, American Access Casualty Company, Kyle Kirkland, … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
Shamekia Bryant and James Bryant v. Tokio Marine HCC and Ouachita Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
3/22/94), City Life Live, L.L.C. v. Post Office Employees Federal Credit Union, 52,616, p. 6 (La.
Dln Holdings, L.L.C. v. Keith Guglielmo, Land Records Supervisor for Parish of Orleans La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
City Life Live v. Post Office Emps. Fed. Credit Union 268 So. 3d 1251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
03/22/94), , 1270 (" Article 1153...
Rubin v. Non-Flood Prot. Asset Mgmt. Auth. 259 So. 3d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Moore v. Gencorp, Inc. , , 1271 (1994).
State v. Teva Pharm. Indus., Ltd. 242 So. 3d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Estate of Ehrhardt v. Jefferson Parish Fire Department 108 So. 3d 1223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“The fundamental purpose of prescription statutes is only to afford a defendant security ]1sof mind and affairs if no claim is made timely, and to protect him from stale claims and the loss or non-preservation of relevant proof.” Moore v. Gencorp, Inc.
Kenly v. Fuller 69 So. 3d 1285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
When interpreting statutory provisions, “if the intent of the legislature is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the courts must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of the legislature if its application does not lead to absurd consequences.” Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
Kevin v. City of Oberlin 60 So. 3d 1205 La. 2011
See Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., Reggio v. E.T.I., 07-1433 (La.12/12/08), .
Stamps v. Canal Indemnity Insurance 35 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
Reggio v. E.T.I. 15 So. 3d 951 La. 2008
Act 472 of 1970.” Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
Fontenot v. PATTERSON INS. 997 So. 2d 529 La. 2008
C.F. Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), (holding that the term "principal action" encompasses the claims as amended or supplemented, and not just the demand as set forth in the original petition).
Hammell v. GICILI 978 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Plaintiffs argue the Supreme Court explicitly disapproved of substantial portions of Randall in Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
Sullivan v. Pitre 944 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Civ.Code Article 9; New Orleans Rosenbush Claims Serv., Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 94-2223 (La.4/10/95), Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
Ferrell Lavergne v. Quality Fabricators of Eunice, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
3/22/94), the supreme court stated that if the intent of the legislature is clear, that it is the end of the matter; courts must give effect to unambiguously expressed intent of the legislature if its application does not lead to absurd consequences.
Lavergne v. Quality Fabricators of Eunice, Inc. 888 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
App. 3 Cir. 3/6/96), , the intent of the legislature controls in statutory interpretation: In Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), , the supreme court stated that if the intent of the legislature is clear, that it is the end of the matter; courts must give effect to unambiguously expressed intent of the legislature if its application does not lead *1152 to absurd consequences.
Brewton v. Underwriters Ins. Co. 848 So. 2d 586 La. 2003
Civ.Code art. 9; Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
Matthews v. State Farm Automobile Insurance 828 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
art. 1031; Moore v. Gencorp Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
Joseph v. Entergy 811 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
Baham v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans 792 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
Huffman v. Goodman 784 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
Smith v. Cutter Biological 770 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Moore v. Gencorp., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94); , also refers to a "timely-filed suit."
Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 764 So. 2d 41 La. 2000
Civ.Code art. 9; New Orleans Rosenbush Claims Serv., Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 94-2223 (La.4/10/95), ; Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
Turnbull v. Thensted 757 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
art. 1153; Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814, p. 6 (La.3/22/94), -72 , and cases cited therein.
In Re Succession of Tompkins 747 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), .
State v. Barbier 743 So. 2d 1236 La. 1999
Ann. art. 9; Touchard, supra ; Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94); .
Edwards v. Daugherty 736 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94); .
Alford v. St. Tammany Parish School Board 721 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
art. 9; Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814, p.3 (La.3/22/94); ; Huszar v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, 95-2594, p. 4 (La.App.
Intense Health Care v. Gore 719 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
3 Cir. 4/3/96) ; ; citing Moore v. Gencorp., Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94); .
Traylor v. Reliance Ins. Co. 715 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), (reversing this Court's holding in Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., (La.App.
Distinguished Jeansonne v. Canal Indemnity Insurance Co. 714 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
The facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts in Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, et al., and Moore v. Gencorp, Inc.
Thibodeaux v. Stamm-Scheele, Inc. 711 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
3 Cir. 4/3/96); ; citing Moore v. Gencorp., Inc., 93-0814 (La.App.1994); .
Rowe v. Certified Security Monitoring 708 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
4 Cir. 6/15/95), , writ denied, 94-1899 (La.10/28/94), , quoting Justice Dennis in Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), : 1 (¡First, always, is the question whether the legislature has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.
Best Fishing, Inc. v. Rancatore 706 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Griffith v. Ohmstede, Inc. 685 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
If a law is clear and unambiguous, “no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.” La.Civ.Code art. 9; See Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-814 (La.3/22/94), .
Huszar v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd. 681 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 93-0814 (La.3/22/94); .
Losavio v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. 675 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
There has been no amendment to the original Petition prior to the Intervention which would extend the 90 day provision to grant an additional 90 days to Mutual of Omaha as in Moore v. Gencorp, Inc.
Allen v. Carollo 674 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
3/22/94), ; Tex / Con Oil & (La.App.
Parker v. Parker 671 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
3/22/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that if the intent of the legislature is clear, that is the end of the matter.
Miller v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 670 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
3/22/94), , the supreme court stated that if the intent of the legislature is clear, that it is the end of the matter; courts must give effect to unambiguously expressed intent of the legislature if its application does not lead to absurd consequences.
Tucker v. Fowler 668 So. 2d 718 La. 1996
St. Landry Parish Police Jury v. Zerangue 664 So. 2d 388 La. 1995
New Orleans Rosenbush Claims Service, Inc. v. City of New Orleans 653 So. 2d 538 La. 1995
Walker v. Zimmerman 659 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
This has long been interpreted to mean that the amended petition constitutes the plaintiffs principal action or demand as fully as if it had been set forth in the original petition, (cites omitted) Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., American Brewing Co. v. Williams, 5 Orl.App.
Moore v. Gencorp, Inc. 641 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Cochren v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 639 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Inc. of Ohio, et al., Justice Dennis writing for the Court correctly stated the jurisprudential rule: First, always, is the question whether the legislature has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.