DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., 23 So. 2d 209.

35 citing documents.

  • Millican v. General Motors Corp. 771 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Clark v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 97-0397 (La.01/21/98), ; Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , (1945); Johnson, Id.
  • Clark v. Mrs. Fields Cookies 707 So. 2d 17 La. 1998
  • Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. 601 So. 2d 1355 La. 1992
    Had the plaintiff been allowed to introduce evidence on this phase of the prescription question he may have been able to show an interruption of prescription supported in the line of cases represented by Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , (1945).
  • Ray v. Alexandria Mall 434 So. 2d 1083 La. 1983
    [7] See these closely analogous cases: , (1945); Jackson v. American Employers' Ins.
  • Langlinais v. Guillotte 407 So. 2d 1215 La. 1981
    Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , (1945); Jackson v. American Employers' Ins.
  • Langlinais v. Guillotte 398 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Plaintiff also relies on certain jurisprudence which holds that service of a suit on parties “closely related” to the true defendant is sufficient to interrupt prescription, particularly Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , and Stewart v. Maloney Trucking and Storage, Inc., (La.App.
  • Clark v. McDonald's System, Inc. 383 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , , also involved a question of incorrect citation.
  • Lushute v. Diesi 343 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    ( Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc. (1945) , )."
  • Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 303 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    4 Cir. 1967); Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , (1945).
  • Reed v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. 303 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
    (1945); Stewart v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., (La.
  • Conner v. Continental Southern Lines, Incorporated 294 So. 2d 485 La. 1974
    Cf. Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , (1945); Jackson v. American Employers' Insurance Co., 202 La.
  • Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 281 So. 2d 724 La. 1973
    23 , (1942); Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , (1945).
  • Hayes v. Muller 243 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    See also, Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, 1945, , ; Jackson v. American Employers’ Ins.
  • Brady v. Bernard 230 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Furthermore, we have carefully considered the factual situations involved in Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , (1945); Jackson v. American Employers’ Ins.
  • Saxon v. Fireman's Insurance Co. of Newark, NJ 224 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , ; Jackson v. American Employers Ins.
  • Jacobs v. Harmon 197 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    1059 , , Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , 23 So.
  • Pico v. New Orleans Shrimp & Fish Co. 181 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    So long as the proper person has been apprised of the demand in any legal capacity, prescription is interrupted.” (emphasis supplied) See also Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , ; Stewart v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., La.App., .
  • Stewart v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc. 147 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., (1945) , , a Supreme Court decision.
  • Brooks v. Wiltz 144 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    The case of Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , , also involved a question of improper or incorrect citation.
  • Martin v. Mud Supply Company 119 So. 2d 484 La. 1960
    23 , ; , and Davis v. Lewis & Lewis, 225 La.
  • Banks v. K & H Stock Farm 97 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , ; Malone, Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation Law 497-498, Section 384; see, also, for tort cases: Davis v. Lewis & Lewis, 226 La.
  • Banks v. Kent Piling Co. 87 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    23 , ; , ; Davis v. Lewis & Lewis, 226 La.
  • Gilmore v. State 79 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    445 , , Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , , Mitchell v. Sklar, La.App., 196 So.
  • Davis v. Lewis & Lewis 78 So. 2d 173 La. 1954
    Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , ; Jackson v. American Employers’ Ins.
  • Davis v. Lewis & Lewis 78 So. 2d 173 La. 1954
    Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , ; Jackson v. American Employers' Ins.
  • Davis v. Lewis & Lewis 60 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    The Lower Court overruled the exception to the jurisdiction stating testimony should be taken to determine whether the Globe Indemnity Company and the firm of Lewis & Lewis had such notice as would interrupt prescription prior to the filing of the amended petition, and as authority for such relied upon the case of Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , .
  • Houeye v. St. Helena Parish School Board 56 So. 2d 413 La. 1951
    23 , ; Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , ; Allen et al. v. Yantis, La.App., 190 So.
  • Buford v. Combs 50 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    See Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , ; Nelken v. Harrison, La.App., ; Jackson v. American Employer's Insurance Co., 202 La.
  • Commercial Fire & Casualty Co. v. T. W. Kleinpeter Const. Co. 47 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    2d 225 ; Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , 23 So.
  • Achord v. Holmes 34 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    538 , , is a case in which the Supreme Court reversed a judgment of this court which had sustained a plea of prescription in a workmen's compensation suit.
  • Bowerman v. Pacific Mut. Ins. 34 So. 2d 53 La. 1948
    23 , ; Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , ; and Broussard v. Missouri Pac.
  • Bowerman v. Pacific Mut. Ins. Co. 34 So. 2d 53 La. 1948
    23 , ; Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., , ; and Broussard v. Missouri Pac.
  • Nelken v. Harrison 31 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    Harrison and his wife were owners of all but one share of the stock of HarFilms, Inc., and conducted the two businesses together, and the service of citation on Abe Harrison, in our judgment, undoubtedly had the effect of interrupting prescription which would otherwise have run in favor of HarFilms, , .
  • Ruffin v. Blue Plate Foods 29 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1947
    In support of his second contention that the first suit against the wrong defendant interrupted the running of prescription and that that interruption continued so long as that suit remained pending, counsel for plaintiff relies on two decisions of our Supreme Court, , , and Jackson V. American Employers' Insurance Co., 202 La.
  • Lunkin v. Triangle Farms 24 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    On June 29, 1945, the Supreme Court reversed our decision on a writ of certiorari and remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings ( , ).