Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McBride v. Earl K. Long Memorial Hospital, 507 So. 2d 821.

135 citing documents.

Sigler v. State, ex rel. Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College 614 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Smith v. MacArthur Surgical Clinic 610 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Richardson v. Moffett 608 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Taylor v. Giddens 607 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Jarreau v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 600 So. 2d 1389 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
however, "a prescriptive statute is subject to the discovery rule embodied in the doctrine of contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio."
Sharkey v. Sterling Drug, Inc. 600 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 597 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
In support they cite our well established jurisprudence that prescription is subject to the discovery rule embodied in the doctrine of “contra non valentem agere nulla currit prescriptio.”
Dufriend v. Tumminello 590 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Augustine v. Derronne 590 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Gore v. Snider 590 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
our Supreme Court laid down the rules: "The one-year prescriptive period commences running on the date the injured party discovers or should have discovered the facts upon which his cause of action is based.
Goodman v. Roberts 587 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Recently, this court explicitly noted that this language in Cartwright v. Chrysler Corporation [ 255 La.
Brady v. Bunge Corp. 582 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Beth Israel v. Bartley, Inc. 579 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
In Re Medical Review Panel of Howard 573 So. 2d 472 La. 1991
[5] *475 a medical malpractice case, the mother of an infant noticed the child's eye problems, but the doctor told her the condition was the natural and expected consequence of the necessary administration of oxygen to a premature child at birth.
Jackson v. Ascension Parish School Bd. 573 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Department of Corrections, Zumo v. R.T.
Olivier v. Poirier 563 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Succession of Smith v. Kavanaugh, Pierson and Talley 565 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Harlan v. Roberts 565 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Intracoastal Seafood Co., Inc. v. Scott 556 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Maung v. May 556 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Houston v. Saluga 555 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
*494 the court summarized these applicable principles: Prescription begins to run on the date the injured party discovers or should have discovered the facts supporting his cause of action.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Spillars 552 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Goodman v. Dixie MacH. Welding & Metal Works, Inc. 552 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Crawford v. Touro Infirmary 552 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Strata v. Patin 545 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Norwood v. Fish 537 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Chandarlis v. Shah 535 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
They contend that under the correct standard, (La.
Noel v. Landry 531 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Chatman v. ABC Insurance Co. 534 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Poole v. Physicians & Surgeons Hosp., (La.App.
Zumo v. RT Vanderbilt Co., Inc. 527 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
White v. Ford Motor Co. 525 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
ive knowledge in contra non valentem cases, said: “Whatever is notice enough to excite attention and put the owner on his guard and call for inquiry is tantamount to knowledge or notice of everything to which inquiry may lead and such information or knowledge as ought to reasonably put the owner on inquiry is sufficient to start the running of prescription.” In a the Supreme Court stated that subsequent decisions had refined the Cartwright notice definition to emphasize that the proper focus is
Welch v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc. 521 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
the purpose of the statute is to set "an outside limit of three years on the applicability of the doctrine of contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio in medical malpractice cases."
Cheramie v. Terral 516 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Poole v. Physicians & Surgeons Hosp. 516 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Cordova v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
Jordan v. Employee Transfer Corp. 509 So. 2d 420 La. 1987
Recently, this court explicitly noted that this language in Cartwright v. Chrysler Corporation, supra had been "refined" to focus on the reasonableness of a tort victim's action or inaction.