Cited by

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

162 citing documents.

Lasseigne v. Earl K. Long Hospital 316 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
598 , (1970), and Steel v. Aetna Life & Casualty, (La.App.
Neyrey v. Lebrun 309 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Lemoine v. Avoyelles Farmers Co-Op 307 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
598 , (1970); Perrin v. Rodriguez, 153 So.
Steel v. Aetna Life & Casualty 304 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Israel v. Smith 302 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Doughty v. General Motors Corp. 303 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
598 , (1970), is dispositive of this case.
Richard v. Smith Engineering Works, Inc. 297 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Buvens v. Buvens 286 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
598 , (1970)) examined this doctrine which clearly applies to the situation in this case.
Duhon v. Lafayette General Hospital 286 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
598 , , crystalized the jurisprudence on this subject matter as follows: "The rule that prescription does not run against one who is ignorant of the existence of facts that would entitle him to bring suit, applies only when such ignorance is not wilful and does not result from negligence, and the doctrine has been limited t
Cyr v. Louisiana Intrastate Gas Corporation 273 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
598 , ; Ayres v. New York Life Insurance Company, 219 La.
Lewis v. Travelers Insurance Company 247 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
(1970); Foy v. Ed Taussig, Inc., (La.App.
Hunter v. SISTERS OF CHARITY OF INCANATE WORD 236 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
In the recent case of Cartwright v. Chrysler Corporation, La., (1970), the Supreme Court crystalized the jurisprudence on this subject matter as follows: "The rule that prescription does not run against one who is ignorant of the existence of facts that would entitle him to bring suit, applies only when such ignorance is not wilful and does not result from negligence, and the doc