hearing on the peremptory exception (Louisiana) · Go Syfert
← Louisiana issues

hearing on the peremptory exception in Louisiana

76 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2024 14 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Stobart v. State Through DOTDgreen
la · 1993 · cited in 18 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2021
2 sentences

2021Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So. 2d 880, 882 (La. 1993).

2009Because evidence was introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception objection to prescription, the trial court’s findings are reviewed under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review, Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993); Babineaux v. State ex rel.

1618
Carter v. Haygoodgreen
la · 2005 · cited in 25 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2021
2 sentences

2021Contra Non Valentem “[C]ontra non valentem non currit praescriptio [(“contra non valentem”)], which means that prescription does not run against a person who could not bring his suit, is a Louisiana jurisprudential doctrine under which prescription may be suspended.” Carter, 04-0646, p. 11, 892 So.2d at 1268 (internal citations omitted).

2015Lin conjunction with the de novo review of legal questions, “[i]f evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception of prescription, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error-dearly wrong standard of review.” Carter v. Haygood, 04-0646, p. 9 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261, 1267 .

225
Straub v. Richardsongreen
lactapp · 2012 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012See Straub v. Richardson, 2011-1689 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/2/12), 92 So.3d 548, 552 , writ denied, 2012-1212 (La.9/21/12), 98 So.3d 341 .

2012See Straub v. Richardson, 2011-1689 (La.App.lst Cir.5/2/12),5 92 So.3d 548, 552 .

22
London Towne Condo. Ass'n v. LONDON TOWNEgreen
la · 2006 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015See Carter v. Haygood, 04-0646 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261 ; see also London Towne Condominium Homeowner’s Ass’n v. London Towne Co., 06-401 (La.10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1227, 1231 .

11
State v. Edgegreen
la · 2012 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012See Straub v. Richardson, 2011-1689 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/2/12), 92 So.3d 548, 552 , writ denied, 2012-1212 (La.9/21/12), 98 So.3d 341 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (25)

CaseCitedYears
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. red
la · 2009
2 sentences

2024Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 08- 1163, p. 20 (La.5/22/09), 16 So.3d 1065, 1082 .

2013Similarly, “[i]f evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception of prescription, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review.” Menard v. Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office, 11-707, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/7/11), 77 So.3d 1090, 1092 , writ denied, 12-73 (La.3/9/12), 84 So.3d 553 (quoting Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 08-1163 (La.5/22/09), 16 So.3d 1065 ).

152013–2024
Cooksey v. Heard, McElroy & Vestal, L.L.P. neutral
lactapp · 2009
2 sentences

2020Cooksey v. Heard, McElroy & Vestal, L.L.P., 44,761 (La App. 2 Cir. 9/23/09), 21 So. 3d 1011 . 10 To reverse a fact finder’s determination, the appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court and that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong.

2019Cooksey v. Heard, McElroy, & Vestal, L.L.P., 44,761 (La App. 2 Cir. 9/23/09), 21 So. 3d 1011 .

32017–2020
Tracy Ray Lomont v. Michelle Myer-Bennett and Xyz Insurance Company green
la · 2015
2 sentences

2024Lomont v. Bennett, 14-2483 (La. 6/30/15), 172 So. 3d 620 ; Regions Bank v. Eymard, 21-0926 (La.

2016Lomont v. Bennett, 14-2483, p. 8 (La.6/30/15); 172 So.3d 620, 627 , If those findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, an appellate court cannot reverse even though it is convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.

22016–2024
Lee v. PROFESSIONAL CONST. SERVICES, INC. neutral
lactapp · 2008
2 sentences

2016Lee v. Prof'l Const. Services, Inc., 07-865 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/08) , 982 So.2d 837, 840 , writ denied, 08-0782 (La. 6/6/08), 983 So.2d 919 .

2013CONCLUSION “If evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception of prescription, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review.” Lee v. Prof'l Const. Services, Inc., 07-865, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/08), 982 So.2d 837, 840 , writ denied, 08-0782 (La.6/6/08),20 983 So.2d 919 .

22013–2016
Lee v. Professional Construction Services, Inc. green
la · 2008
2 sentences

2016Lee v. Prof'l Const. Services, Inc., 07-865 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/08) , 982 So.2d 837, 840 , writ denied, 08-0782 (La. 6/6/08), 983 So.2d 919 .

2013CONCLUSION “If evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception of prescription, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review.” Lee v. Prof'l Const. Services, Inc., 07-865, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/08), 982 So.2d 837, 840 , writ denied, 08-0782 (La.6/6/08),20 983 So.2d 919 .

22013–2016
Brown v. Trask neutral
la · 2009
2 sentences

2013McGuire v. Mosley Rogers Title Co. L.L.C., 43,554 (La.App.2d Cir.9/17/08), 997 So.2d 23 , writ denied, 08-2728 (La.1/30/09), 999 So.2d 757 ; Scranton v. Ashley Ann Energy, L.L.C., 46,984 (La.App.2d Cir.4/11/12), 91 So.3d 1174 , writ denied, 12-1345 (La.9/28/12), 98 So.3d 846 .

2012When evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception, the factual conclusions of the district court are reviewed under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review. 7 McGuire v. Mosley Rogers Title Co. L.L.C., 43,554 (La.App.2d Cir.09/17/08), 997 So.2d 23, 28 , writ denied, 08-2728 (La.01/30/09), 999 So.2d 757 .

22012–2013
Massie v. Deloach neutral
la · 2005
2 sentences

2013McKinley, supra, citing Carter v. Haygood, 04-0646 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261 ; Alexander v. Fulco, 39,293 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/05), 895 So.2d 668, 674 , writ denied, 05-0781 (La.5/6/05), 901 So.2d 1107 . | cThe date of discovery is the date the negligence was discovered or should have been discovered by a reasonable person in the plaintiffs position.

2008Alexander v. Fulco, 39,293 (La. *226 App.2d Cir.02/25/05), 895 So.2d 668 , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.05/06/05), 901 So.2d 1107 , citing Carter v. Haygood, XXXX-XXXX (La.01/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261 .

22008–2013
McGuire v. Mosley Rogers Title Co., LLC green
lactapp · 2008
2 sentences

2013McGuire v. Mosley Rogers Title Co. L.L.C., 43,554 (La.App.2d Cir.9/17/08), 997 So.2d 23 , writ denied, 08-2728 (La.1/30/09), 999 So.2d 757 ; Scranton v. Ashley Ann Energy, L.L.C., 46,984 (La.App.2d Cir.4/11/12), 91 So.3d 1174 , writ denied, 12-1345 (La.9/28/12), 98 So.3d 846 .

2012When evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception, the factual conclusions of the district court are reviewed under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review. 7 McGuire v. Mosley Rogers Title Co. L.L.C., 43,554 (La.App.2d Cir.09/17/08), 997 So.2d 23, 28 , writ denied, 08-2728 (La.01/30/09), 999 So.2d 757 .

22012–2013
Alexander v. Fulco green
lactapp · 2005
2 sentences

2013McKinley, supra, citing Carter v. Haygood, 04-0646 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261 ; Alexander v. Fulco, 39,293 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/05), 895 So.2d 668, 674 , writ denied, 05-0781 (La.5/6/05), 901 So.2d 1107 . | cThe date of discovery is the date the negligence was discovered or should have been discovered by a reasonable person in the plaintiffs position.

2008Alexander v. Fulco, 39,293 (La. *226 App.2d Cir.02/25/05), 895 So.2d 668 , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.05/06/05), 901 So.2d 1107 , citing Carter v. Haygood, XXXX-XXXX (La.01/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261 .

22008–2013
La Bruzzo v. State ex rel. Governor green
lactapp · 2014
2 sentences

2024If evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception of prescription, 3 See, LaBruzzo, where Mr. LaBruzzo similarly alleged he had been continually prevented from exercising his right of ownership of such property. 165 So.3d at 171 . 23-CA-194 10 the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard of review.

2024Id.

12024–2024
Chapital v. Harry Kelleher & Co. green
lactapp · 2014
1 sentence

2023Id. (citing Lomont, 14–2483, p. 8, 172 So.3d at 627).

12023–2023
Atain Speciality Insurance Co. v. Premier Performance Marine, LLC green
lactapp · 2016
1 sentence

2021Co., 193 So. 3d at 190 n. 3. 22 exhibits were not introduced into evidence at the hearing on the peremptory exception raising the objection of peremption.

12021–2021
TIG Insurance Co. v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp. green
lactapp · 2009
1 sentence

2017TIG Insurance Company v. Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Corporation, 2009-0330 (La.App. 1st Cir. 9/11/09), 22 So.3d 981, 983 .

12017–2017
Theodore v. Iberville Parish School Board neutral
lactapp · 2013
1 sentence

2016Theodore, 112 So.3d at 271 .

12016–2016
Touzet v. VSM Seafood Services, Inc. green
lactapp · 1996
1 sentence

2013Seafood Servs., Inc., 96-0225, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/27/96), 672 So.2d 1011, 1012-1013 . “[E]vidence may be introduced to support or controvert any of the objections pleaded, when the grounds thereof do not appear from the petition” at the hearing on the peremptory exception.

12013–2013
Menard v. Iberia Parish Sheriff's Office green
lactapp · 2011
1 sentence

2013Similarly, “[i]f evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception of prescription, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review.” Menard v. Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office, 11-707, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/7/11), 77 So.3d 1090, 1092 , writ denied, 12-73 (La.3/9/12), 84 So.3d 553 (quoting Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 08-1163 (La.5/22/09), 16 So.3d 1065 ).

12013–2013
Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College v. Abdelghani neutral
la · 2012
1 sentence

2013Similarly, “[i]f evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception of prescription, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review.” Menard v. Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office, 11-707, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/7/11), 77 So.3d 1090, 1092 , writ denied, 12-73 (La.3/9/12), 84 So.3d 553 (quoting Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 08-1163 (La.5/22/09), 16 So.3d 1065 ).

12013–2013
Scranton v. Ashley Ann Energy, L.L.C. neutral
lactapp · 2012
1 sentence

2013McGuire v. Mosley Rogers Title Co. L.L.C., 43,554 (La.App.2d Cir.9/17/08), 997 So.2d 23 , writ denied, 08-2728 (La.1/30/09), 999 So.2d 757 ; Scranton v. Ashley Ann Energy, L.L.C., 46,984 (La.App.2d Cir.4/11/12), 91 So.3d 1174 , writ denied, 12-1345 (La.9/28/12), 98 So.3d 846 .

12013–2013
Scranton v. Ashley Ann Energy, L.L.C. neutral
la · 2012
1 sentence

2013McGuire v. Mosley Rogers Title Co. L.L.C., 43,554 (La.App.2d Cir.9/17/08), 997 So.2d 23 , writ denied, 08-2728 (La.1/30/09), 999 So.2d 757 ; Scranton v. Ashley Ann Energy, L.L.C., 46,984 (La.App.2d Cir.4/11/12), 91 So.3d 1174 , writ denied, 12-1345 (La.9/28/12), 98 So.3d 846 .

12013–2013
Hudson v. EAST BATON ROUGE SCHOOL BD. green
lactapp · 2003
1 sentence

2012Bd., 02-987, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/28/03), 844 So.2d 282 With respect to the standard of review applicable herein: If evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception of prescription, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error standard of review.

12012–2012
Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. green
la · 1992
1 sentence

2011Spott v. Otis Elevator Co., supra; McKinley v. Scott, supra. When evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception of prescription, the trial judge’s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error standard of review.

12011–2011
Gallant Investments, Ltd. v. Illinois Central Railroad green
lactapp · 2009
1 sentence

2010Gallant Investments, XXXX-XXXX at p. 10, 7 So.3d at 19 .

12010–2010
Babineaux v. DOTD green
lactapp · 2005
1 sentence

2009Dept. of Transp. and Development, 04-2649 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/22/05) , 927 So.2d 1121, 1123 .

12009–2009
Perez v. Trahant green
lactapp · 2001
1 sentence

2003Perez v. Trahant, 00-2372 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/01) , 806 So.2d 110 , writs denied, 02-0847, 02-0901 (La.8/30/02), 823 So.2d 953 .

12003–2003
Save Our Wetlands, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality green
la · 2002
1 sentence

2003Perez v. Trahant, 00-2372 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/01) , 806 So.2d 110 , writs denied, 02-0847, 02-0901 (La.8/30/02), 823 So.2d 953 .

12003–2003

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5628 (9) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209 (8) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5605 (8) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 1 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2772 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 37:682 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1203 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1221 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5607 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 13:5112 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 37:2150.1 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check