Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Horil v. Scheinhorn, 663 So. 2d 697.

26 citing documents.

Ida Peralez v. Hdi Global Specialty Se La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
“In instances of a conflict, the statute specifically directed to the matter at issue must prevail as an exception to the statute 4 more general in character.” Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-967, p. 3 (La.11/27/95)
Laureen Olson v. Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Board; Kenneth Schnauder and Kurt Loup La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Red Sox Invs., LLC. v. City of Shreveport 245 So. 3d 1180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
Mary Frances Howard v. Mamou Health Resources, Inc. D/B/A Savoy Care Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
11/27/95), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the consequences of a claimant’s failure to follow the mandatory procedure set forth in La.R.S.
Howard v. Mamou Health Resources 129 So. 3d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-967 (La.11/27/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the consequences of a claimant’s failure to follow the mandatory procedure set forth in La.R.S.
Romero v. Elias 972 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
In Horil v. Scheinborn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/97), , the supreme court held that the detailed provisions of La.R.S.
Peter Romero v. Darryl Elias, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
11/27/97), the supreme court held that the detailed provisions of La.R.S.
Hon. Wilford D. Carter v. H. Lynn Jones, II, Clerk of Court La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Carter v. Jones 967 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-967, p. 3 (La.11/27/95), .
Pace Royalty Trust Fund, Inc. v. O'NEAL 927 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), .
Deano v. Akkaraju 856 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
However, it argues by analogy, and in keeping with the Supreme Court holding in Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), , we should read La.R.S.
Susan Deano, John L. Deno & Mark Guilbeau v. Vidyadhar Akkaraju, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
11/27/95), we should read La.R.S.
Posey v. Singletary 855 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), .
Roberson v. Arcadia Healthcare Center, Inc. 850 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Although the court recognized the holding of Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), , that the provisions of La.
Ginn v. Woman's Hospital Foundation, Inc. 842 So. 2d 338 La. 2003
Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), .
Miller v. Miller 817 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
arts.2050, 2052; Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), ; Lewis v. Intermedics Intraocular Inc., 56 F.3d 703 (5 Cir.1995).
Williams v. O'NEILL 813 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), ; Castille v. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center, 96-1476 (La.App.
Coleman v. Deno 787 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
In Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), , the plaintiff settled his case against the qualified health care provider for $100,000 and subsequently sought additional damages from the Fund.
Edwards v. Sawyer Indus. Plastics, Inc. 790 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), ; First National Bank of Boston, supra .
Gladney v. Sneed 742 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), .
Giammanchere v. Ernst 742 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
40:1299.42(D)(5) applies to the instant case depends on this court's interpretation of the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), .
Smith v. ST. TAMMANY FIRE PROTECTION DIST. NO. 1. 723 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
art. 10, 13; Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967, p. 3 (La.11/27/95); .
Dugas v. Durr 707 So. 2d 1368 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-967, p. 3 (La.11/27/95); .
State v. STATE POLICE RIVERBOAT GAM. DIV. 696 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95); .
Castille v. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center 692 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
The PCF argues that, in Horil v. Scheinhorn, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95); , the supreme court held that the provisions of La.R.S.
Russell v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad 683 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
art. 3; Horil v. Scheinhom, 95-0967 (La.11/27/95), .