DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cartwright v. Chrysler Corp., 232 So. 2d 285.

162 citing documents.

  • Frank Scurlock v. Kurt Heitmeier, Robert Heitmeier and Eustis Insurance, Inc. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana, Division of Administration,office of Community Development-Disaster Recovery Unit v. Orson Billings A/K/A Orson Ray Billings … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., Carter v. Haygood, 04-646 (La.
  • John Brandt Baxter, in His Capacity as the Independent Administrator of the Succession of August C. Baxter v. … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., see also, Plaquemines Parish Com’n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., So.2d 285, 287 (1970); R.O.M., Note, Gover v. Bridges: Prescription— Applicability of Contra Non Valentem Doctrine to Medical Malpractice Actions, 61 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Baxter v. Lewis 247 So. 3d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc. , , 354 (La.1992) ; see also, Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc. , , 1054 (La.1987) ; Cartwright v. Chrysler Corp. , , , 287 (1970) ; R.O.M., Note, Gover v. Bridges: Prescription-Applicability of Contra Non Valentem Doctrine to Medical Malpractice Actions , 61 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Scott v. Zaheri 157 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    See Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., see also
  • Albe v. City of New Orleans 150 So. 3d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    See Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., see also
  • Fred Bulliard v. the City of St. Martinville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    exempt the plaintiff’s 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.” Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, ( (1970); Sumerall v. St.
  • Bulliard v. City of St. Martinville 139 So. 3d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    fied that “[tjhis 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.” Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, ( , (1970); Sumerall v. St.
  • Milbert v. Answering Bureau, Inc. 120 So. 3d 678 La. 2013
    Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., see also, , (1970).
  • Oliver Howard v. Edward A. Dufresne, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    A plaintiff need not have actual knowledge of the conditions that might entitle him to bring suit, but only “constructive notice.” So.2d 285, 287 (La.1970).
  • Davidson v. Glenwood Resolution Authority, Inc. 108 So. 3d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Mr. Davidson asserts that the trial court’s references to the “time zone” when he, Mr. Davidson, should have known “something was amiss of a nature that would put him on notice sufficient enough”
  • Walker v. AMID/Metro Partnership, LLC 109 So. 3d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • Katherine Sepulvado v. Rebecca Procell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Caterpillar, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    -04, the supreme court set forth the often-cited standard for determining constructive knowledge in a contra non valentum case: 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
  • American Zurich Insurance Co. v. Caterpillar, Inc. 99 So. 3d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    -04 , the supreme court set forth the often-cited standard for determining constructive knowledge in a contra non valen-tem case: 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 every thing to wh
  • Sepulvado v. Procell 99 So. 3d 1107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • Barcia v. Louisiana Medical Malpractice Insurance Co. 67 So. 3d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., see also, Plaquemines Parish Com’n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., , (1970); R.O.M., Note, Gover v. Bridges: Prescriptionr-Applicability of Contra Non Valentem Doctrine to Medical Malpractice Actions, 61 Tul.
  • Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 48 So. 3d 234 La. 2010
    (Citing Corsey, supra at 1322 ( , (1970); Sumerall v. St.
  • Distinguished Guillot v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. 50 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    (1970), and Mistich v. Cordis Mfg.
  • Kroger Co. v. L.G. Barcus & Sons, Inc. 2 So. 3d 1163 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    (1970); Tilley, supra; *1168 (La.App.
  • Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 975 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    4 Cir. 9/29/94) , , 679 , (1970).
  • LaCombe v. Bank One Corp. 953 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., see also, Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., , (1970); R.O.M., Note, Gover v. Bridges: Prescription—Applicability of Contra Non Valentem Doctrine to Medical Malpractice Actions, 61 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Dr. Rick Lacombe v. Bank One Corp. D/B/A Bank One La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., 19 see also, Plaquemines Parish Com'n 20 Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., 21 (La.1987); So.2d 285, 22 287 (1970); R.O.M., Note, Gover v. Bridges: 23 Prescription—Applicability of Contra Non Valentem Doctrine to 24 Medical Malpractice Actions, 61 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Carter v. Haygood 892 So. 2d 1261 La. 2005
    Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., see also, Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., , (1970); R.O.M., Note, Gover v. Bridges: Prescription — Applicability of Contra Non Valentem Doctrine to Medical Malpractice Actions, 61 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Jones v. State 891 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    *702 A plaintiff need not have actual knowledge of the conditions that might entitle him to bring suit, but only “constructive notice.”
  • Ducote v. Touro Infirmary 860 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Landry v. Blaise, Inc. 829 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    As the Supreme Court explained in ..., the language in Cartwright v. Chrysler Corp., [ , (1970)], that "...
  • Doe v. Archdiocese of New Orleans 823 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • Renfroe v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation & Development 809 So. 2d 947 La. 2002
    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.” Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, 375 So.2d *954 1319, 1322 (La.1979) ( , (1970); Sumerall v. St.
  • Renfroe v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. 809 So. 2d 947 La. 2002
    Corsey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Corrections, 375 So.2d *954 1319, 1322 (La.1979) ( , (1970); Sumerall v. St.
  • DIVISION PLACE PART. v. Carl E. Woodward, Inc. 806 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • Campo v. Correa 797 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Smith v. Cutter Biological 770 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    (1970), to the effect that constructive knowledge is: "...
  • Guitreau v. Kucharchuk 763 So. 2d 575 La. 2000
    [2] In Jordan , , (1970): 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 every thing to which inquiry may lead and such information or knowledge as ought to reasonably put the owner on inquiry is sufficient to start the runni
  • Hendrick v. ABC Ins. Co. 760 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc. and Touche Ross & Co., Plaquemines Parish Comm'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., , (1970).
  • Cornay v. FMC Corp. 735 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    at 428 ( , )(emphasis removed).
  • Frosch v. Chevalier 731 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Touchet v. Baker Hughes Inc. 737 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    (1970), defined constructive knowledge as follows: 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 o
  • Causby v. Perque Floor Covering 707 So. 2d 23 La. 1998
    ( , (1970); Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co., 139 La.
  • Paragon Development Group, Inc. v. Skeins 700 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    (1970), the test for what constitutes notice sufficient to commence the running of liberative prescription was set forth.
  • Trahan v. Savage Industries, Inc. 692 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    (1970), addressed the issue as follows: While there are numerous appellate court decisions providing "A manufacture or seller of a product which involves a risk of injury to the user is liable to any person, whether the purchaser or a third person, who without fault on his part sustains an injury cause
  • Kambitsis v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 665 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    287 (1970); also White v. Willis-Knighton Med.
  • Doskey v. Hebert 645 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    (1970), as "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 runnin
  • Adams v. First Nat. Bank of Commerce 644 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Rozas v. Department of Health and Human Resources, State of Louisiana, (La.App.
  • Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 636 So. 2d 211 La. 1994
  • April v. Associated Catholic Charities 629 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick 625 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Manion v. Pollingue, supra ; , (1970).
  • Cole v. Celotex Corp. 611 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Plaintiff argues that the trial judge, in his written reasons
  • Martin v. Mid-South Tank Utilities Co. 614 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    (1970), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated, "Whatever is notice enough to 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 put the owner on inquiry is sufficient to start the runnin
  • Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. v. Cedars 614 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Cartwright v. Chrysler Corporation, [ ,]