Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dear v. Mabile, 637 So. 2d 745.

15 citing documents.

Seale & Ross, PLC v. Littleleaf Properties, LLC and Jennifer Lee La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
App. 1st Cir. 5/ 20/ 94)
Luca Paul Orsot v. Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
1 Cir. 5/20/94), wherein a chiropractor brought suit against his former patient for payment for services rendered.
Brumberger v. Cvitanovich 140 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Touro Infirmary v. American Maritime Officer 34 So. 3d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
1 Cir. 5/20/94), , the court found that in spite of the fact that there was a contractual basis underlying the open account relationship, the applicable prescriptive period was the three years for open accounts, not the ten-year period for contracts: Plaintiff further contends that even if his action is based on an open account
Lopez v. Evans 992 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
App. 1st Cir. 5/20/94), , holds that the three-year prescriptive period applicable to open accounts begins to run from the date on which each service was *550 provided and not from the date of the last service.
BELL FENCE v. Bond 948 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
1st Cir. 5/20/94), ; Farlee Drug Center, Inc. v. Belle Meade Pharmacy, Inc., (La.App.
Dukes v. Sherwood Acres Apartments 898 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Heck v. Lafourche Parish Council 860 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Parry v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund 828 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
1 Cir. 5/20/94) , (applying reasoning in Stams, supra, to reject argument three-year period in La.
Krolick v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Human Resources 790 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Krolick v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF HRS 790 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Ray v. Leatherman 688 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Bass v. Laporte 672 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Elloie v. Anthony 660 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Dauzat v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 657 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1 Cir. 5/20/94) at 6, , 748 our brethren of the first circuit stated: Defendants answered the appeal, seeking an award for damages for frivolous appeal.