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 2006–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Egle v. Eglegreen2 sentences2013Jackson was dormant and that it prescribed. 2) The trial court respectfully erred in stating that the youngest child, Austin Jackson, was emancipated in 2005 and that two years had passed thus barring a revivor. 3) The trial court respectfully erred in finding that 2001 Kansas Judgment had prescribed in accordance with the Louisiana [t]en year liberative prescription statute. llaw and discussion Standard of Review In Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co., 05-1291, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 158, 161 , writ denied, 06-1033 (La.6/23/06), 930 So.2d 982 , this court set forth the appella 2013In Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co., 05-1291, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 158, 161 , writ denied, 06-1033 (La.6/23/06), 930 So.2d 982 , this court set forth the appellate standard of review applicable to a peremptory exception of prescription as follows: Ordinarily, when an appeal involves a ruling on a peremptory exception with contested issues of fact and “[w]hen evidence is introduced and evaluated in the trial court on a peremptory exception, the appellate court must review the entire record to determine whether the trial court manifestly erred with its factual conclusions.” | 5 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Buteau
green
2 sentences2013Jackson was dormant and that it prescribed. 2) The trial court respectfully erred in stating that the youngest child, Austin Jackson, was emancipated in 2005 and that two years had passed thus barring a revivor. 3) The trial court respectfully erred in finding that 2001 Kansas Judgment had prescribed in accordance with the Louisiana [t]en year liberative prescription statute. llaw and discussion Standard of Review In Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co., 05-1291, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 158, 161 , writ denied, 06-1033 (La.6/23/06), 930 So.2d 982 , this court set forth the appella 2013In Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co., 05-1291, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 158, 161 , writ denied, 06-1033 (La.6/23/06), 930 So.2d 982 , this court set forth the appellate standard of review applicable to a peremptory exception of prescription as follows: Ordinarily, when an appeal involves a ruling on a peremptory exception with contested issues of fact and “[w]hen evidence is introduced and evaluated in the trial court on a peremptory exception, the appellate court must review the entire record to determine whether the trial court manifestly erred with its factual conclusions.” | 5 | 2006–2013 |
Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co.
neutral
2 sentences2013Jackson was dormant and that it prescribed. 2) The trial court respectfully erred in stating that the youngest child, Austin Jackson, was emancipated in 2005 and that two years had passed thus barring a revivor. 3) The trial court respectfully erred in finding that 2001 Kansas Judgment had prescribed in accordance with the Louisiana [t]en year liberative prescription statute. llaw and discussion Standard of Review In Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co., 05-1291, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 158, 161 , writ denied, 06-1033 (La.6/23/06), 930 So.2d 982 , this court set forth the appella 2013In Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co., 05-1291, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 158, 161 , writ denied, 06-1033 (La.6/23/06), 930 So.2d 982 , this court set forth the appellate standard of review applicable to a peremptory exception of prescription as follows: Ordinarily, when an appeal involves a ruling on a peremptory exception with contested issues of fact and “[w]hen evidence is introduced and evaluated in the trial court on a peremptory exception, the appellate court must review the entire record to determine whether the trial court manifestly erred with its factual conclusions.” | 4 | 2007–2013 |
Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Company
neutral
2 sentences2013Jackson was dormant and that it prescribed. 2) The trial court respectfully erred in stating that the youngest child, Austin Jackson, was emancipated in 2005 and that two years had passed thus barring a revivor. 3) The trial court respectfully erred in finding that 2001 Kansas Judgment had prescribed in accordance with the Louisiana [t]en year liberative prescription statute. llaw and discussion Standard of Review In Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co., 05-1291, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 158, 161 , writ denied, 06-1033 (La.6/23/06), 930 So.2d 982 , this court set forth the appella 2013In Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co., 05-1291, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 158, 161 , writ denied, 06-1033 (La.6/23/06), 930 So.2d 982 , this court set forth the appellate standard of review applicable to a peremptory exception of prescription as follows: Ordinarily, when an appeal involves a ruling on a peremptory exception with contested issues of fact and “[w]hen evidence is introduced and evaluated in the trial court on a peremptory exception, the appellate court must review the entire record to determine whether the trial court manifestly erred with its factual conclusions.” | 4 | 2007–2013 |
Amoco Production Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 02-240, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/29/03), 838 So.2d 821, 829 , writs denied, 03-1102, 03-1104 (La.6/6/03), 845 So.2d 1096 ). [[Image here]] In Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co., 05-1291, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 158, 161 , writ denied, [06— 1033] (La.6/23/06), 930 So.2d 982 , this court discussed appellate review relative to an exception of prescription stating as follows: Ordinarily, when an appeal involves a ruling on a peremptory exception with contested issues of fact and “[w]hen evidence is introduced and evaluated in the trial court on a peremptory ex | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Amoco Production Co. v. Texaco Inc.
green
1 sentence2011Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 02-240, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/29/03), 838 So.2d 821, 829 , writs denied, 03-1102, 03-1104 (La.6/6/03), 845 So.2d 1096 ). [[Image here]] In Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co., 05-1291, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 158, 161 , writ denied, [06— 1033] (La.6/23/06), 930 So.2d 982 , this court discussed appellate review relative to an exception of prescription stating as follows: Ordinarily, when an appeal involves a ruling on a peremptory exception with contested issues of fact and “[w]hen evidence is introduced and evaluated in the trial court on a peremptory ex | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.