Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. Cutter Biological, 770 So. 2d 392.

19 citing documents.

Willis J. Jones and Shadonne Jones v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. and Bp America Production Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
4 Cir. 9/6/00), stating: [T]he Smith court “observe[d] that it seems strange to contemplate the relation back of a claim or cause of action to a time prior to the time at which the claim or cause of action came into existence.” Id.
Criticized Robert J. Caluda, Aplc and New Orleans Private Patrol Service, Inc. v. the City of New Orleans, Linebarger … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
App. 4 Cir. 9/6/00), (observing that “the multiplicity of class action filings relied on by the plaintiffs results in just such a ‘stacking of class actions’ as was criticized and rejected by Basch v. Ground Round, Inc., 139 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1998)”).
Wilbert S. Porche v. Sutherlands Lumber and Home Center, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Porche v. Sutherlands Lumber & Home Ctr., Inc. 265 So. 3d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Grace Ranch, LLC v. Bp America Production Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Grace Ranch, LLC v. BP Am. Prod. Co. 252 So. 3d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Carlos Boone, Et Ux. v. Conoco Phillips Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 9/6/00), 3 An “untimely filed original petition does not support the relation- back of a new cause of action[.]” Allen v. State, Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections, 12-430, p. 6 (La.App.
Boone v. Conoco Phillips Co. 139 So. 3d 1047 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Larry Allen v. State of La, Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Allen v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrections 107 So. 3d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Smith v. Transport Services Co. 67 So. 3d 487 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 9/6/00) , , for the proposition that the entry of an order by a federal judge provides sufficient notice to trigger the running of the suspended prescriptive period that denies class certification; however, as Transport correctly points out, this case was decided by applying the pre-1997 class action statutes, prior to the enac
TCC Contractors, Inc. v. Hospital Service District No. 3 of the Parish of Lafourche 52 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Barham & Arceneaux v. Kozak 874 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Cecil Brooking & Elizabeth Brooking v. Victor P. Vegas & Betty Rives Vegas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Brooking v. Vegas 866 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Ducote v. Touro Infirmary 860 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
4 Cir. 9/6/00), -01 , after determining that the issue of prescription raises questions of both fact and law, this Court stated that “[t]he trial judge’s factual findings concerning prescription should not be reversed by this Court in the absence of manifest error.” Therefore, this Court should determine whether, considering all
King's Joint Venture v. Marino 827 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Bordelon v. City of Alexandria 822 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
4 Cir. 9/6/00); (quoting Armstrong v. Martin Marietta Corp., 138 F.3d 1374, 1382 (11 Cir.), cert.
Doe v. Archdiocese of New Orleans 823 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002