Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cox v. Von Ahlefeldt, 105 La. 543.

41 citing documents.

State v. Murphy Cormier General Contractors, Inc. 170 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The decision in Cox v. Von Ahlefeldt [ , 30 So.
In Re Succession of Gonzales 868 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
175 , (1900); Bothick v. Voorhies, 9 So.
West v. West 475 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Succession of Ramsey v. Ramsey 385 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
175 , (1900); Clark v. Hedden, 109 La.
Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections 375 So. 2d 1319 La. 1979
McClendon v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections 357 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Romero v. Trahan 345 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
“In the case of Cox v. Von Ahlefeldt, [ ], ( 30 So.
Jackson v. Zito 314 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Tassin v. Allstate Insurance Company 310 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Succession of Goss 304 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
[Succession of Fisher, supra; , 30 So.
Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich. 296 So. 2d 271 La. 1974
Buvens v. Buvens 286 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Perrodin v. Clement 254 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
Ultimately, in the landmark case of Cox v. Von Ahlfeldt [Ahlefeldt], , 30 So.
Succession of Henican 248 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
Dagenhart v. Robertson Truck Lines, Inc. 230 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Succession of Simms 195 So. 2d 114 La. 1966
Succession of Delesdernier 184 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
Green v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company 144 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
`It must appear from the allegations in the petition that the plaintiff had used due diligence to detect the fraud, and that he could not by the use of reasonable diligence have made the discovery sooner.'" , 30 So.
Aegis Insurance Co. v. Delta Fire & Casualty Co. 99 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Again in Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Sartor, 5 Cir., 78 F.2d 924, 929 , , 30 So.
Dufrene v. Tracy 94 So. 2d 297 La. 1957
The following statement is concordant: "For the negative it is said that the rule, `Contra non valentem agere no currit prescriptio,' is not recognized in this state; , 30 So.
Draper v. Van Leer 1 So. 2d 513 La. 1941
universal legatee will have the enjoyment of the effects included in the testament, from the day of the decease, if the demand for the delivery has been made within a year from that period; if not, enjoyment will only commence from the day of the judicial demand, dr from the day on which the delivery has been agreed upon.’ *267 “ , 30 So.
Smith v. Tyson 192 So. 61 La. 1939
Succession of Dancie 186 So. 14 La. 1939
580 , it was held on rehearing that prescription began to run when the will was probated, and, referring to other cases where the same ruling was made, the court said: “ , 30 So.
Alexander v. Gray 181 So. 639 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1938
McGuire v. Monroe Scrap Material Co. 180 So. 413 La. 1938
339 , this court, in speaking of the case of Brown v. Clingman, said: “If, in that case, the identity of the incendiary had been unknown, the prescription could not have run, for the bringing of the suit would have been impossible.” , 30 So.
Succession of Kretzer 170 So. 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Succession of Smith 162 So. 21 La. 1935
at pages 577, 578, 30 So.
Succession of Harris 155 So. 446 La. 1934
Kelly Springfield Tire Co. v. Oakley 138 So. 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Lucey Manufacturing Corp. v. Oil City Iron Works 131 So. 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Stockholders, acting unanimously, do what they please with what belongs to them” — , 30 So.
Wisner v. City of New Orleans 126 So. 681 La. 1930
Ann. 465 ; , at page 576, 30 So.
Matthews v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. 120 So. 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Warn v. Mexican Petroleum Corp. 6 La. App. 55 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1927
In Cox vs. Von Aslefeldt, , at the bottom of page 560, 30 South.
Lorio v. Gladney 97 So. 16 La. 1923
Vance v. Ellerbe 90 So. 735 La. 1922
Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Commission 81 So. 727 La. 1919
Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. 71 So. 598 La. 1916
“Those who claim exemption from prescription by reason of ignorance resulting from fraud must allege and show that such ignorance was neither willful nor negligent.” , 30 South.
Jones v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 51 So. 582 La. 1910
at bottom of page 560, 30 South.
Wells v. Goss 34 So. 470 La. 1903
Schwartz v. Lake 34 So. 96 La. 1903
Goodwin v. Bodcaw Lumber Co. 34 So. 74 La. 1902