Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Renfroe v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation & Development, 809 So. 2d 947.

102 citing documents.

Sims v. American Insurance Co. 101 So. 3d 1 La. 2012
and Development, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02)
Huddleston v. Huddleston 106 So. 3d 567 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
and Dev., 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
Wells v. Zadeck 89 So. 3d 1145 La. 2012
and Development, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), ; La.
Watters v. Department of Social Services 102 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
and Dev., 01-1646, p. 9 (La.2/26/02), ; In re: Medical Review Panel of Thomas, 05-0879, 05-0880, p. 3 (La.App.
Marvin W. Buxton v. William Corbello La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Buxton v. Corbello 82 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
and Dev., 01-1646, p. 4 (La.2/26/02), .
Hines v. BROWNING-FERRIS, INC. 73 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
art. 3492; Renfroe v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, 01-1646 (La.02/26/02), .
Becker v. Murphy Oil Corp. 70 So. 3d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
& Dev., 2001-1646, p. 9 (La.2/26/02), .
Explained Laforte v. Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. 65 So. 3d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
and Development, 01-1646, p. 4 (La.2/26/02), , 950: [T]he interruption of prescription by suit against one solidary obligor is effective as to all solidary obligors.
Wells v. Zadeck 62 So. 3d 861 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
tional circumstances.” Further, the supreme court in Marin reiterated that “[t]his principle will not exempt the plaintiffs claim from the running of prescription if his ignorance is attributable to his own wilfulness or neglect; that is, a plaintiff will be deemed to know what he could by reasonable diligence have learned.” Marin, supra, citing Renfroe v. State ex rel DOTD, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), ; (La.App.
Noble v. ESTATE OF MELIUS 62 So. 3d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
and Development, 2001-1646, p. 9 (La.2/26/02), .
Thomas v. Tri-State Foods, L.P. 55 So. 3d 117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
and Development, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 48 So. 3d 234 La. 2010
and Development, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), (citing La.
Ferrara v. Starmed Staffing, LP 50 So. 3d 861 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
and Dev., 01-1646, p. 4 (La.2/26/02), .
Hammond ex rel. Estate of Tillman v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc. 38 So. 3d 1270 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
and Development, 2001-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
Davis v. Johnson 36 So. 3d 439 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
and Development, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
Monson v. Travelers Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 30 So. 3d 66 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
and Dev., 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
Burg v. LIVING CENTERS EAST INC. 28 So. 3d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In Renfroe v. State through Department of Transportation and Development, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), , the Supreme Court reiterated the four-part test, to determine if a supplemental petition relates back to the original petition for prescription purposes: (1) The amended claim must arise out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence set
Biehl v. B & K PRECISION CORP. 23 So. 3d 979 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See Renfroe v. State of Louisiana through the Dept. of Transportation and Development, 01-1646 (La.02/26/02), .
Williams v. New Orleans Police Department 24 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
Gardner v. T & T BARGE AND MARINE, INC. 11 So. 3d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
2/26/02), , although in that case, the court denied relation back on the basis that factors (2) and (4) elucidated in the Ray case were not met; there was no notice to the correct defendant by the filing of suit against the originally named defendant, and the substitute defendant was a new and wholly unrelated entity.
Levingston v. City of Shreveport 4 So. 3d 942 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
See Renfroe v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 2001-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
Gallant Investments, Ltd. v. Illinois Central Railroad 7 So. 3d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
& Dev., 01-1646, p. 9 (La.2/26/02), .
Hayward v. Hayward 5 So. 3d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Mims Ex Rel. Unopened Succession of Mims v. Lifecare Hospitals, LLC 1 So. 3d 660 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
and Development, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
Zoulek v. PIP America 2 So. 3d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Jenkins , 2006-0566, p. 5, 945 So.2d at 818 , citing Renfroe v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, 2001-1646, p. 9 (La.2/26/02), , 953.
Jackson v. JEFFERSON PARISH CLERK OF COURT 981 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
and Development, 01-1646, p. 9 (La.2/26/02), .
Haynes v. Hunter 973 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
DOMINION EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION v. Waters 972 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
and Development, 01-1646, p. 9 (La.2/26/02), .
Herman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 977 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Dept. of Transportation and Development, 01-1646, p. 9 (La.2/26/02), .
Edwards v. Alexander 960 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
and Development, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
Dave Beach v. Peter Scalfano Enterprises La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Beach v. Peter Scalfano Enterprises 949 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
and Dev., 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. 949 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
and Dev., 01-1646, p. 9 (La.2/26/02), ; In re: Medical Review Panel of Thomas, 05-0879, 05-0880, p. 3 (La.App.
In Re Jenkins 945 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Renfroe v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, XXXX-XXXX, p. 9 (La.2/26/02), , 953.
Thomas v. State ex rel. Department of Health 934 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Renfroe v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, 2001-1646 (La.2/26/02); .
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Doyle Giddings, Inc. 920 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
art. 1153; Renfroe v. State through Department of Transportation and Development, 01-1646 (La.02/26/02), ; Ray, supra ; Smith, supra .
Babineaux v. DOTD 927 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Renfroe v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
Tramontin v. Tramontin 928 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
[3] Renfroe v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, 01-1646, p. 9 (La.2/26/02), .
Hodges v. Republic Western Ins. Co. 921 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Renfroe v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.2/26/02), .
Martinez Management, Inc. v. Caston 900 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
and Development, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), ; Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361 (La.4/11/94), .
Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Safeguard Storage Properties, L.L.C. 894 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
and Development 2001-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
McCafferty v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office 880 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Department of Transportation, 2001-1646 (La.2/26/02), .
Thornton v. City of Shreveport 865 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
and Dev., XXXX-XXXX (La.2/26/02), .
Ducote v. Touro Infirmary 860 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
In Renfroe v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, 2001-1646 (La.2/26/02), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed this doctrine as follows: This Court has recognized four factual situations in which the doctrine of cow- *129 tra non valentem applies so as to prevent the running of liberative prescription: (1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from
Martin v. Comm-Care Corp. 859 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
XXXX-XXXX (La.2/26/02), , which states that the "purpose of a prescription statute is to afford a defendant economic and psychological security" against untimely filed lawsuits and "to protect the defendant from stale claims and the loss of relevant proof."
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. MLT CON. 849 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Department of Transportation and Development, XXXX-XXXX, pp. 8-9 (La.2/26/02), , 953.
Morris v. Westside Transit Line 841 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Renfroe v. State of Louisiana, DOTD, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), , 950.
Amoco Production Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 838 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
DOTD, 01-1646 (La.2/26/02), ; Touchet v. Baker Hughes, Inc., 98-749 (La.App.
Gaddy v. Caddo Parish School Bd. 833 So. 2d 1088 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
and Dev., XXXX-XXXX (La.02/26/02), .