jurisprudentially created exception in Louisiana

2021Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361 (La. 4/11/94), 635 So.2d 206, 211 .

2007The doctrine is based on the premise that, in some circumstances, equity and justice require that prescription "be suspended because the plaintiff was effectually prevented from enforcing his rights for reasons external to his own will." Wimberly, 635 So.2d at 211 .

2000The rationale for this jurisprudentially created rule is found in Cole v. Sherrill, 7 So.2d 205 (La.App. 2d Cir.1942): "It has never been good policy to bankrupt one to pay another even though the award granted is not in line with other cases involving the same injuries and might not fully compensate the plaintiff for injuries he received.

1986The rationale for this jurisprudentially created rule is found in Cole v. Sherill, 7 So.2d 205 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1942): It has never been good policy to bankrupt one to pay another even though the award granted is not in line with other cases involving the same injuries and might not fully compensate the plaintiff for injuries he received.

2000In State v. Martin, 582 So.2d 306 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 588 So.2d 113 (La.1991), the court found that "even if the Louisiana Code of Evidence prohibits the introduction of certain testimony, in those rare cases where the evidentiary rule impermissibly impairs the defendant's right to present a defense, the evidence still should be admitted." The court then declined to apply this narrow jurisprudentially created exception to that particular case because it found that the defendants therein were not prohibited from presenting their defense.

1997In State v. Martin, 582 So.2d 306 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 588 So.2d 113 (La. 1991), the court found that "even if the Louisiana Code of Evidence prohibits the introduction of certain testimony, in those rare cases where the evidentiary rule impermissibly impairs the defendant's right to present a defense, the evidence still should be admitted." The court then declined to apply this narrow jurisprudentially created exception to that particular case because it found that the defendants therein were not prohibited from presenting their defense.

2000In State v. Martin, 582 So.2d 306 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 588 So.2d 113 (La.1991), the court found that "even if the Louisiana Code of Evidence prohibits the introduction of certain testimony, in those rare cases where the evidentiary rule impermissibly impairs the defendant's right to present a defense, the evidence still should be admitted." The court then declined to apply this narrow jurisprudentially created exception to that particular case because it found that the defendants therein were not prohibited from presenting their defense.

1997In State v. Martin, 582 So.2d 306 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 588 So.2d 113 (La. 1991), the court found that "even if the Louisiana Code of Evidence prohibits the introduction of certain testimony, in those rare cases where the evidentiary rule impermissibly impairs the defendant's right to present a defense, the evidence still should be admitted." The court then declined to apply this narrow jurisprudentially created exception to that particular case because it found that the defendants therein were not prohibited from presenting their defense.

1994In that regard, Mr. Smith relies upon the theory of contra non valentem arguing in brief that "[p]laintiff could not bring a fear of cancer claim absent some evidence that his fear was `reasonable.' In this case, plaintiff introduced evidence to show that this fear was completely reasonable, but that information was not available to plaintiff more than one year prior to the filing of suit." Contra non valentem is a jurisprudentially created exception to Civil Code article 3467 which states that "[p]rescription runs against all persons unless exception is established by legislation." See Corsey

1992Contra non valentem is a jurisprudentially created exception to Civil Code article 3467 stating that "[p]rescription runs against all persons unless exception is established by legislation." See Corsey v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, 375 So.2d 1319 (La.1979).

2023The “Defendant Exception” “has been applied only where, after the abandonment period has accrued, a defendant has taken steps that facilitated the judicial resolution of the dispute on the merits and were an expression of the defendant’s willingness or consent to receive judicial resolution of the dispute.” London Livery Ltd. v. Brinks, 2008- 0230, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/10/08), 3 So.3d 13, 15 .

2019However, the Louisiana Supreme Court overruled this jurisprudentially created rule – one adopted by most of our state courts of appeal – in Lomont v. Bennett, 2014-2483, p. 10 (La. 6/30/15), 172 So.3d 620, 628 , holding that an analysis of whether post- malpractice concealment constitutes fraud should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

2017App. 1 Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 898 , 899, writ denied , 02-1601 (La. 9/30/02), 825 So.2d 1196 .) 11 However, a jurisprudentially created exception to that general rule exists "when the owner exercises operational control over the contractor's methods of operation or gives express or implied authorization to unsafe practices." Id.

2017App. 1 Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 898 , 899, writ denied , 02-1601 (La. 9/30/02), 825 So.2d 1196 .) 11 However, a jurisprudentially created exception to that general rule exists "when the owner exercises operational control over the contractor's methods of operation or gives express or implied authorization to unsafe practices." Id.

2017App. 1 Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 898 , 899, writ denied , 02-1601 (La. 9/30/02), 825 So.2d 1196 .) 11 However, a jurisprudentially created exception to that general rule exists "when the owner exercises operational control over the contractor's methods of operation or gives express or implied authorization to unsafe practices." Id.

2013See, e.g., Mouret v. Belmont Homes, Inc., 12-55 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/30/12) , 91 So.3d 592 ; Webb v. Massiha, 08-226 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/30/08) , 993 So.2d 345 , writ denied, 09-2834 (La.2/6/09), 999 So.2d 780 , writ denied, 09-2845 (La.2/6/09), 999 So.2d 781 .

2013See, e.g., Mouret v. Belmont Homes, Inc., 12-55 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/30/12) , 91 So.3d 592 ; Webb v. Massiha, 08-226 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/30/08) , 993 So.2d 345 , writ denied, 09-2834 (La.2/6/09), 999 So.2d 780 , writ denied, 09-2845 (La.2/6/09), 999 So.2d 781 .

2013See, e.g., Mouret v. Belmont Homes, Inc., 12-55 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/30/12) , 91 So.3d 592 ; Webb v. Massiha, 08-226 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/30/08) , 993 So.2d 345 , writ denied, 09-2834 (La.2/6/09), 999 So.2d 780 , writ denied, 09-2845 (La.2/6/09), 999 So.2d 781 .

2007An otherwise abandoned cause of action may be ineligible for a claim of abandonment, either before or after the three-year period elapses, “when the defendant waives his right to assert abandonment by taking actions inconsistent with an intent to treat the case as abandoned.” Clark , 2000-3010 at p. 7, 785 So.2d at 785 .

2007The doctrine is based on the premise that, in some circumstances, equity and justice require that prescription "be suspended because the plaintiff was effectually prevented from enforcing his rights for reasons external to his own will." Babineaux, 04-2649 at p. 4, 927 So.2d at 1124 .

2005Holden, 720 So.2d at 445 .

2001In State v. Broadway, 96-2659, pp. 8-9 (La.10/19/99), 753 So.2d 801, 809 , cert. denied, Broadway v. Louisi ana, 529 U.S. 1056 , 120 S.Ct. 1562 , 146 L.Ed.2d 466 (2000), the court commented on what the trial court in the instant case characterized as the “fruit” of officers’ investigations, stating: Information about the course of a police investigation is not relevant to any essential elements of the charged crime, but such information may be useful to the prosecutor in “drawing the full picture” for the jury.

2001In State v. Broadway, 96-2659, pp. 8-9 (La.10/19/99), 753 So.2d 801, 809 , cert. denied, Broadway v. Louisi ana, 529 U.S. 1056 , 120 S.Ct. 1562 , 146 L.Ed.2d 466 (2000), the court commented on what the trial court in the instant case characterized as the “fruit” of officers’ investigations, stating: Information about the course of a police investigation is not relevant to any essential elements of the charged crime, but such information may be useful to the prosecutor in “drawing the full picture” for the jury.

2001In State v. Broadway, 96-2659, pp. 8-9 (La.10/19/99), 753 So.2d 801, 809 , cert. denied, Broadway v. Louisi ana, 529 U.S. 1056 , 120 S.Ct. 1562 , 146 L.Ed.2d 466 (2000), the court commented on what the trial court in the instant case characterized as the “fruit” of officers’ investigations, stating: Information about the course of a police investigation is not relevant to any essential elements of the charged crime, but such information may be useful to the prosecutor in “drawing the full picture” for the jury.

2001In State v. Broadway, 96-2659, pp. 8-9 (La.10/19/99), 753 So.2d 801, 809 , cert. denied, Broadway v. Louisi ana, 529 U.S. 1056 , 120 S.Ct. 1562 , 146 L.Ed.2d 466 (2000), the court commented on what the trial court in the instant case characterized as the “fruit” of officers’ investigations, stating: Information about the course of a police investigation is not relevant to any essential elements of the charged crime, but such information may be useful to the prosecutor in “drawing the full picture” for the jury.

2000Fair justice between both parties must be arrived at. ( 7 So.2d at 211 )." Traylor, supra, 1188 .

1999Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co., 219 La. 380 , 53 So.2d 137 (1951).

1999Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co., 219 La. 380 , 53 So.2d 137 (1951).

1999State v. Black, 97-0774, pp. 2-3 (La.12/12/97); 706 So.2d 423, 424-425 ; see also, State v. Duhon, 95-2724, p. 6 (La.5/21/96); 674 So.2d 944, 946 .

1999State v. Black, 97-0774, pp. 2-3 (La.12/12/97); 706 So.2d 423, 424-425 ; see also, State v. Duhon, 95-2724, p. 6 (La.5/21/96); 674 So.2d 944, 946 .

1996Contra non valentem is a jurisprudentially created exception to Civil Code article 3467 which provides that "[p]rescription runs against all persons unless exception is established by legislation." Miley v. Consolidated Gravity Drainage District No. 1, 93-1321, p. 6 (La.App. 1st Cir. 9/12/94), 642 So.2d 693, 697 .

1988The dangerous trap doctrine was recently discussed by this court in Lagrange v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 503 So. 2d 1158 (La.App. 3d Cir.1987), where we stated: "The dangerous trap doctrine is a jurisprudentially created rule which states that if a crossing is unusually dangerous because the view of the motorist is so obstructed as to require that he place himself in a position of peril dangerously near the tracks, before he has a view of the oncoming train, the railroad will be held liable unless it can show that it took unusual precautions, such as reducing the speed of the train,

1988The dangerous trap doctrine was recently discussed by this court in Lagrange v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 503 So. 2d 1158 (La.App. 3d Cir.1987), where we stated: "The dangerous trap doctrine is a jurisprudentially created rule which states that if a crossing is unusually dangerous because the view of the motorist is so obstructed as to require that he place himself in a position of peril dangerously near the tracks, before he has a view of the oncoming train, the railroad will be held liable unless it can show that it took unusual precautions, such as reducing the speed of the train,

1987Appellant's interpretation of this statute is based on the presumption that when the Louisiana Legislature amended LSA R.S. 23:1102, they did so to immediately legislatively overrule the jurisprudentially created rule of Verbois v. Howard, 322 So.2d 110 (La.1975); Crabtree v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 284 So.2d 545 (La. 1973).

1987Appellant's interpretation of this statute is based on the presumption that when the Louisiana Legislature amended LSA R.S. 23:1102, they did so to immediately legislatively overrule the jurisprudentially created rule of Verbois v. Howard, 322 So.2d 110 (La.1975); Crabtree v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 284 So.2d 545 (La. 1973).