Duhe v. Lindsey
Duhe v. Lindsey, 131 So. 3d 62 (La. 2014).
Cited by
Explained in 1
- Miller v. Thibeaux 184 So. 3d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ray v. Alexandria Mall 434 So. 2d 1083
Opinion text
In re Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 09-10540; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1119. Granted. The judgment of the district court denying the exception of prescription is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court to make a determination as to whether plaintiffs’ October 4, 2012 petition naming Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co. as a defendant relates back to the September 12, 2012 petition naming Progressive Security Ins. Co. as a defendant. See Ray v. Alexandria Mall, 434 So.2d 1083 (La.1983). The district court should then reconsider the exception of prescription in light of its finding on this issue. JOHNSON, C.J., and WEIMER and HUGHES, JJ., would deny.