relation-back doctrine in Louisiana

2009Williams v. United States, 405 F.2d 234 (5th Cir.1968); 1A Barron & Holt, Federal Practice and Procedure § 448 (Wright ed.1960).

2002Williams v. United States, 405 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1968); 1A Barron & Holt, Federal Practice and Procedure § 448 (Wright ed.1960).

2016The Supreme Court initially agreed with the lower courts, after applying the relation back doctrine set forth in La, C.C.P. art. 1153 and the factors set forth in Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Div. of Hospitals, 475 So.2d 1040 (La.1985) and finding that the amending petition related back to the timely filing of the original petition.

2007The Court noted that "[t]he doctrine of relation back under Rule 15(c) is liberally applied today in federal courts, especially if no disadvantage will accrue to the opposing party." Id. at 1043 .

2019In pondering the issue before it, the Smith court "observe[d] that it seems strange to contemplate the relation back of a claim or cause of action to a time prior to the time at which the claim or cause of action came into existence." Id. at 410 .

2019In pondering the issue before it, the Smith court "observe[d] that it seems strange to contemplate the relation back of a claim or cause of action to a time prior to the time at which the claim or cause of action came into existence." Id. at 410 .

2016On rehearing, however, the Court reconsidered its earlier decision, finding that the relation back doctrine was inapplicable in medical malpractice cases given that those claims “are governed exclusively by the specific 17provisions of the Act regarding prescription and suspension of prescription.” Warren, 07-0492, 21 So.3d at 208 .

2010As discussed above, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Warren, supra, held that the relation back doctrine cannot be applied in medical malpractice cases.

1985Williams v. U.S., 405 F.2d 234 (5th Cir.1968); Hockett v. American Airlines, Inc., 357 F.Supp. 1343 (N.D.Ill.1973); 1A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 448 (Wright ed. 1960).

1985Williams v. U.S., 405 F.2d 234 (5th Cir.1968); Hockett v. American Airlines, Inc., 357 F.Supp. 1343 (N.D.Ill.1973); 1A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 448 (Wright ed. 1960).

2023Renfroe, 809 So. 2d at 950- 953.

2014No. 3 of Parish of Lafourche, 10-685, p. 22-23 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/8/10) , 52 So.3d 1103, 1116-17 , the first circuit found that claims arising via an assignment did not become exigible prior to the date of the assignment: [O]ur law, as interpreted in the jurisprudence, holds that in order for the doctrine of relation back to apply and to circumvent the effect of prescription, a new cause of action asserted in an amended petition (1) must have been in existence at the time the original petition was filed; (2) must have been vested in the plaintiffs at that time; and (3) must arise out of “the c

2011In deciding to apply Article 1153 and the doctrine of relation back, the Third Circuit below relied on Calbert v. Batiste, 09-514 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/09) , 23 So.3d 1031 .

2011See Moore v. Gencorp, Inc., 633 So.2d 1268 (La.1994); Reggio v. E.T.I., 07-1433 (La.12/12/08), 15 So.3d 951 . 7 In Moore, this court considered whether an intervention, which was not barred by prescription at the time the principal action was filed, was timely if filed within ninety days of service of an amended principal demand.

2010Hunsucker v. Global Business Furniture, 33,972 (La.App.2d Cir.9/27/00), 768 So.2d 698 , writ denied, 2000-3013 (La.12/15/00), 777 So.2d 1235 ; Strouse v. M & M Properties, 32,792 (La.App.2d Cir.3/3/00), 753 So.2d 434 .

2010Hunsucker v. Global Business Furniture, 33,972 (La.App.2d Cir.9/27/00), 768 So.2d 698 , writ denied, 2000-3013 (La.12/15/00), 777 So.2d 1235 ; Strouse v. M & M Properties, 32,792 (La.App.2d Cir.3/3/00), 753 So.2d 434 .

2010Hunsucker v. Global Business Furniture, 33,972 (La.App.2d Cir.9/27/00), 768 So.2d 698 , writ denied, 2000-3013 (La.12/15/00), 777 So.2d 1235 ; Strouse v. M & M Properties, 32,792 (La.App.2d Cir.3/3/00), 753 So.2d 434 .

2000By *411 way of analogy see Walls v. American Optical, 98-0455 (La.9/8/99); 740 So.2d 1262 . [11] Findley v. City of Baton Rouge, 570 So.2d 1168, 1170 (La.1990), quoted at page 10 of plaintiffs' brief refers to an "original timely pleading." In Scott v. Haley, 632 So.2d 793 (La.App. 1 Cir.1993), the original petition was filed on September 11, 1991, which was less than a year after both the surgery complained of (September 20, 1990) and the death of the decedent which occurred on January 23, 1991.

2000By *411 way of analogy see Walls v. American Optical, 98-0455 (La.9/8/99); 740 So.2d 1262 . [11] Findley v. City of Baton Rouge, 570 So.2d 1168, 1170 (La.1990), quoted at page 10 of plaintiffs' brief refers to an "original timely pleading." In Scott v. Haley, 632 So.2d 793 (La.App. 1 Cir.1993), the original petition was filed on September 11, 1991, which was less than a year after both the surgery complained of (September 20, 1990) and the death of the decedent which occurred on January 23, 1991.

1995Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1153 provides: "When the action or defense asserted in the amended petition or answer arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of filing of the original pleading." In Ray v. Alexandria Mall, 434 So.2d 1083 (La.1983), our Supreme Court summarized the relation back doctrine for prescription purposes as to late added defendants.