Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Zitogreen1 sentence2008Jackson v. Zito, 314 So.2d 401, 404 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 320 So.2d 551 (La. 1975). | 1 | 1 |
Federal Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co. of No. Amer.green2 sentences1975See Hubert, The Theory of a Case in Louisiana, 24 Tul.L.Rev. 66 (1949) . . ." We acknowledge that the thrust of the above provision "is to permit the courts to render substantive justice on the basis of facts pleaded, and to refuse to permit a denial of substantive rights (where the party has timely filed pleadings alleging the factual basis of his claim) because of technical defects of language or of some mechanical `theory-of-the-case' characterization defeating a recovery otherwise allowable under the facts pleaded," (citations omitted), Justice Tate, concurring in Federal Insurance Co. v. 1975See Hubert, The Theory of a Case in Louisiana, 24 Tul.L.Rev. 66 (1949) . . ." We acknowledge that the thrust of the above provision "is to permit the courts to render substantive justice on the basis of facts pleaded, and to refuse to permit a denial of substantive rights (where the party has timely filed pleadings alleging the factual basis of his claim) because of technical defects of language or of some mechanical `theory-of-the-case' characterization defeating a recovery otherwise allowable under the facts pleaded," (citations omitted), Justice Tate, concurring in Federal Insurance Co. v. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Zito
green
1 sentence2008Jackson v. Zito, 314 So.2d 401, 404 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 320 So.2d 551 (La. 1975). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pottinger v. NEW ORLEANS HEATING & COOLING
neutral
1 sentence2008Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 862 states that: "Except as provided in Article 1703, [1] a final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such a relief in his pleadings and the latter contain no prayer for general and equitable relief." See also Pottinger v. New Orleans Heating & Cooling Specialists, Inc., et al., 06-701 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/30/07) , 951 So.2d 1224, 1226 . [T]he thrust of . . . [article 862] `is to permit courts to render substantive justice on basis of facts pleaded and to refuse t | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Maquar v. Transit Management
green
1 sentence1996Thus, we conclude that the running of prescription against the retaliatory discharge claim was tolled and the action was timely, if, as assumed for the purpose of analysis, the claim filed with OWCA adequately gave notice of a factual basis for a claim arising out of the employer’s discharge of plaintiff from employment.” 593 So.2d at 368 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
green
1 sentence1984Plaintiff argues that the trial judge incorrectly applied estoppel, a doctrine "not favored" in Louisiana, Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 323 So.2d 120 (La.1975). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Hunter v. SISTERS OF CHARITY OF INCANATE WORD
green
1 sentence1979Hunter v. Sisters of Charity of Incarnate Word, 236 So.2d 565 (1st Cir. 1970) and the authorities cited therein. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Young v. Clement
green
1 sentence1979In the later case of Young v. Clement, 367 So.2d 828 (La. 1979) discussed above, the court states as to the defendant hospital: *1094 "Plaintiffs failed to show an ignorance of the factual basis for their claim against the hospital existing in the year before the claim against the hospital was filed." The general rule is that where plaintiff's petition shows on its face that the prescriptive period has run, and plaintiff is contending that there was a suspension or interruption of prescription, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the suspension or interruption. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.