DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Reeder v. North, 701 So. 2d 1291.

155 citing documents.

  • Williams v. Webre 876 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    In Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), , the Supreme Court gave a definitive interpretation of the three year limitation in legal malpractice actions.
  • Jumonville v. King 870 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    In Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), , the court stated that the “continuous representation rule” is a suspension principle based on the third application of contra non valen-tem, which suspends prescription when the debtor has acted to prevent the creditor from availing herself of her cause of action.
  • Rosen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 870 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 15 (La.10/21/97), ; Chapital v. Guaranty Savings & Homestead Ass'n, 96-0244, *1062 pp. 4-6 (La.App.
  • Augman v. Colwart 874 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    9:5605(B); Reeder v. North, 97-0239, pp. 12-13 (La.10/21/97), -99 .
  • Eastin v. Entergy Corp. 865 So. 2d 49 La. 2004
    of Ethics v. Ourso, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/9/03), ; Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), ; Hebert v. Doctors Mem.
  • Pena v. Williams 867 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), ().
  • Atkinson v. LeBlanc 860 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Conerly v. State 858 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    of Ethics v. Ourso, XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.4/9/03), , quoting Reeder v. North, 97-0239, pp. 12-13 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Klein v. American Life & Cas. Co. 858 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), .
  • State Bd. of Ethics v. Ourso 842 So. 2d 346 La. 2003
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), ().
  • Rainey v. ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC 840 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 15 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Bel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 845 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 12 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Huber v. Midkiff 838 So. 2d 771 La. 2003
    [7] Reeder v. *777 North, 97-0239 (La.1997); ; In Re Medical Review Panel of Harris, 97-1970 (La.App.
  • Lanthier v. Family Dollar Store 836 So. 2d 5 La. 2002
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 14 (La.10/21/97), ; Williams v. State, Dept. of Health & Hospitals, 95-0713, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), ; Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc., 94-1238, p. 8 (La.11/30/94), -65 .
  • State Bd. of Ethics v. Ourso 838 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 12-13 (La.10/21/97), , the supreme court discussed the difference between peremption and prescription: Peremption differs from prescription in several respects.
  • Parish of Caddo v. Durham 817 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Paternostro v. LaRocca 813 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court was confronted with the application of La.
  • Dauterive Contractors, Inc. v. Landry and Watkins 811 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 5 (La.10/21/97); .
  • Perez v. Trahant 806 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 11 (La.10/21/97), -98 .
  • Smith v. Jitney Jungle of America 802 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Bank v. Antonini, 33,436 (La.App.2d Cir.08/23/00), , citing, Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Sanches v. Morris 802 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    9:5605 are both prescriptive as well as peremptive, and that this statute completely extinguishes a cause of action for legal malpractice three years from the date of the alleged act, omission or neglect, citing Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Boykin v. Coregis Insurance 800 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court was confronted with the application of LSA-R.S.
  • Creighton v. Bryant 793 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    2 Cir. 3/31/99), , we summarized the Louisiana Supreme Court's review of this malpractice statute as follows: The recent opinion of our supreme court in Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), , provides primary guidance for the interpretation of this statute which was first enacted in 1990.
  • Huffman v. Goodman 784 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    art. 3458; Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp. 785 So. 2d 1 La. 2001
    See, e.g., Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 9 (La.10/21/97)
  • Kennedy v. MacAluso 791 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    See Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), ; Andre v. Golden, 99-689 (La.App.
  • Keaty v. Raspanti 781 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    In Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court has determined that La.
  • Davis v. Coregis Ins. Co. 789 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Appellant's reliance on Intense Health Care is misplaced, however, as the supreme court's decision in Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97); , overrules the "appreciable harm" notion and applies La.R.S.
  • McElwee v. City of Bossier City 775 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Gettys v. Sessions and Fishman, LLP 772 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Civ.Code art. 3461; Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), ; Latter v. ABC Ins., Co., 97-1968 (La.App.
  • Istre v. Meche 770 So. 2d 776 La. 2000
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 14 (La.10/21/97), ; Williams v. State, Dept. of Health & Hospitals, 95-0713, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), ; Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc., 94-1238, p. 8 (La.11/30/94), -65 .
  • Hibernia Nat. Bank v. Antonini 767 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Coffey v. Block 762 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    9:5605; Reeder v. North, 97-0239 *1186 (La.10/21/97), .
  • SHREVEPORT CREDIT RECOVERY INC. v. Modelist 760 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    The recent opinion of our supreme court in Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), , provides primary guidance for the interpretation of the Act which was first enacted in 1990.
  • Hendrick v. ABC Ins. Co. 760 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    While the appeal was pending, the Louisiana Supreme Court decided the case of Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), , which Hendrick believed directly impacted the outcome of this case.
  • Boutte v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Serv. 759 So. 2d 45 La. 2000
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), ; Bellard v. Louisiana Correctional & Indus.
  • Jarrett v. Capital Area Legal Services Corp., Inc. 763 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 9 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Raby-Magee v. Matzen 764 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Thus, to begin the three-year peremptive period, the statute refers to only the date of the act of malpractice, not the date of discovery or the date the "`facts ripened into a viable cause of action sufficient to support a lawsuit[.]'" Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 7 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Ewing v. State Ex Rel Dept. of Transp. 757 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    In Reeder v. North, 97-0239, p. 12-13 (La.10/21/97); , the supreme court discussed the difference between peremption and prescription: Peremption differs from prescription in several respects.
  • Turnbull v. Thensted 757 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    9:5605 B. Mr. Thensted asserts that Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97) , is the most authoritative guidance for the interpretation of LSA-R.S.
  • Jeter v. Shamblin 750 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), ; In Re Medical Review Panel of Harris, 97-1970 (La.App.
  • Andre v. Golden 750 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    The third exception was granted in part based on the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), .
  • McCoy v. City of Monroe 747 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    See Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), ; Gowan v. Ingram, 31,037 (La.App.2d Cir.9/23/98), , writ denied, 98-2696 (La.1/8/99), .
  • Lambert v. Toups 745 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    See La.Civ.Code art. 3461; Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97); .
  • Haley v. Galuszka 744 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    9:5605, as interpreted in Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), .
  • ACADEMY MORTG. CO., LLC v. Juarez 740 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    In Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97) , our supreme court definitively interpreted the provisions of La.
  • Cardneaux v. Dollar 731 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    The recent opinion of our supreme court in Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), , provides primary guidance for the interpretation of this statute which was first enacted in 1990.
  • Hughes v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 735 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Clark v. Mangham, Hardy, Rolfs & Abadie 733 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), ; Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Car-rere & Denegre, L.L.P.
  • Latter v. ABC Ins. Co. 719 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    We relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/2/97), .