65 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1903–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Plaquemines Par. Com'n Council v. Delta Dev. Co.green2 sentences2018See Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council , 502 So.2d at 1055 ; see also , R.O.M., supra. In Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc. , 502 So.2d 1034 , 1054-55 (La. 1987), we recognized the four instances where contra non valentem is applied to prevent the running of prescription: (1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff's action; (2) where there was some condition coupled with the contract or connected with the proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing or acting; (3) wher 2018See Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council , 502 So.2d at 1055 ; see also , R.O.M., supra. In Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc. , 502 So.2d 1034 , 1054-55 (La. 1987), we recognized the four instances where contra non valentem is applied to prevent the running of prescription: (1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff's action; (2) where there was some condition coupled with the contract or connected with the proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing or acting; (3) wher | 4 | 4 |
Renfroe v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP.green1 sentence2023Renfroe, 01-1646, p. 9, 809 So.2d at 953. | 1 | 1 |
Lawrence v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospitalgreen1 sentence2022See Lawrence, 48 So.3d at 1285-86 . | 1 | 1 |
Whitnell v. Menvillegreen1 sentence2019Whitnel/ v. Menville, 540 So. 2d 304, 309 ( La. 1989); Faubourg Saint Charles, LLC v. Faubourg Saint Charles Homeowners Assn., Inc., 18- 0806 ( La. | 1 | 1 |
| Eschete v. Gulf South Beveragesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| ASP Enterprises, Inc. v. Guillorygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barbe v. American Sugar Refining, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Dixon v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY MED. CENTERgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dixon v. LA STATE UNIV. MEDICAL CENTERgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lee v. Missouri Pacific RR Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Newton v. Ouachita Parish School Bd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Brennan v. BD. OF ZON. ADJUSTMENTS, ETC.green | 1 | 1 |
| City of New Orleans v. Elmsred | 1 | 1 |
| McKeithen v. LeBlancgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carter v. Haygood
green
2 sentences2016Carter v. Haygood,. 2004-0646 (La. 1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261, 1267 . 2016Carter v. Haygood, 2004-0646 (La. 1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261, 1268 . | 4 | 2009–2016 |
Shannon v. Vannoy
green
2 sentences2020Shannon, 251 So. 3d at 448 . 2019Shannon, 251 So. 3d at 448 . | 2 | 2019–2020 |
Barkerding v. Whittaker
green
2 sentences2019App. 4 Cir. 12/28/18), 263 So.3d 1170 , 1180, writ denied , 19-166 (La. 4/8/19), 267 So.3d 607 , 2019 WL 1615947 . 2019App. 4 Cir. 12/28/18), 263 So.3d 1170 , 1180, writ denied , 19-166 (La. 4/8/19), 267 So.3d 607 , 2019 WL 1615947 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State by and Through Caldwell v. Fournier Industrie et Sante
neutral
2 sentences2019App. 4 Cir. 12/28/18), 263 So.3d 1170 , 1180, writ denied , 19-166 (La. 4/8/19), 267 So.3d 607 , 2019 WL 1615947 . 2019App. 4 Cir. 12/28/18), 263 So.3d 1170 , 1180, writ denied , 19-166 (La. 4/8/19), 267 So.3d 607 , 2019 WL 1615947 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Medical Review Panel, Claim of Moses
green
2 sentences2019Review Panel for Claim of Moses , 00-2643, p. 6 (La. 5/25/01), 788 So.2d 1173 , 1177 ; La. 2019Review Panel for Claim of Moses , 00-2643, p. 6 (La. 5/25/01), 788 So.2d 1173 , 1177 ; La. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Capitol House Preservation Company, LLC v. PERRYMAN CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED
neutral
2 sentences2009In Capitol House Preservation Co., L.L.C. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc., 98-2216 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/5/99), 745 So.2d 1194 , writ denied, 99-3446 (La.2/11/00), 754 So.2d 937 (Capitol House II), this court reversed the granting of prescription exceptions, applying the continuing tort principle to find that the claims were not time barred against the remaining defendants. 2004In Capitol House Preservation Company, L.L.C. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc., 98-2216 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/5/99) , 745 So.2d 1194 , writ denied, 99-3446 (La.2/11/00), 754 So.2d 937 , the second appeal, this court reversed the granting of the prescription exceptions, applying the continuing tort principle to find that the claims were not time barred against the remaining defendants. | 2 | 2004–2009 |
Alomang v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2009The fourth circuit in Alomang v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 97-1349, p. 1 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/4/98), 718 So.2d 971, 973 , writ denied, 98-1352 (La.7/2/98), 724 So.2d 734 , stated: Defendants suggest in brief that plaintiffs tort claims have prescribed. 2003Alomang v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 97-1349 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/4/98) , 718 So.2d 971 , writ denied, 98-1352 (La.7/2/98), 724 So.2d 734 . | 2 | 2003–2009 |
Alomang v. FREEPORT-McMoRAN INC.
neutral
2 sentences2009The fourth circuit in Alomang v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 97-1349, p. 1 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/4/98), 718 So.2d 971, 973 , writ denied, 98-1352 (La.7/2/98), 724 So.2d 734 , stated: Defendants suggest in brief that plaintiffs tort claims have prescribed. 2003Alomang v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 97-1349 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/4/98) , 718 So.2d 971 , writ denied, 98-1352 (La.7/2/98), 724 So.2d 734 . | 2 | 2003–2009 |
CAPITOL HOUSE PRESERVATION v. Perryman
green
2 sentences2009In Capitol House Preservation Co., L.L.C. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc., 98-2216 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/5/99), 745 So.2d 1194 , writ denied, 99-3446 (La.2/11/00), 754 So.2d 937 (Capitol House II), this court reversed the granting of prescription exceptions, applying the continuing tort principle to find that the claims were not time barred against the remaining defendants. 2004In Capitol House Preservation Company, L.L.C. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc., 98-2216 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/5/99) , 745 So.2d 1194 , writ denied, 99-3446 (La.2/11/00), 754 So.2d 937 , the second appeal, this court reversed the granting of the prescription exceptions, applying the continuing tort principle to find that the claims were not time barred against the remaining defendants. | 2 | 2004–2009 |
Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hosp.
green
2 sentences2007Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hospital, 486 So.2d 717 (La. 1986) (hereinafter " Doctors Hospital "). 2006Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hospital, 486 So.2d 717 (La.1986) (hereinafter " Doctors Hospital "). | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Willett v. Premier Bank
green
2 sentences2003Co., 99-1475 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/1/00) , 758 So.2d 893, 895-896 , the Third Circuit noted: In Willett v. Premier Bank, 97-187, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/97); 696 So.2d 196, 201 , we stated: Article 2163 clearly states that the plaintiff may demand a remand of the case for trial of the prescription exception. 2000In Willett v. Premier Bank, 97-187, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/97); 696 So.2d 196, 201 , we stated: Article 2163 clearly states that the plaintiff may demand a remand of the case for trial of the prescription exception. | 2 | 2000–2003 |
Poole v. Poole
green
1 sentence2025Poole, 15-1317, p. 5, 213 So.3d at 22 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Pachi v. Kammer
green
1 sentence2025The plaintiff testified that “he did not notice any damage until January 19, 1954; that he then called in a contractor to estimate the damage and received the estimate on February 9, 1954”; and that “he actually did not learn the full extent of his damage until April 1954, when he had another estimate made by an architect.” Pachi, 130 So.2d at 419 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Crosby v. Sahuque Realty Co.
green
1 sentence2023App. 4 Cir. 8/21/13), 122 So.3d 1197 (“Crosby 1”) (appeal of the trial court’s sustaining of the prescription exception filed by Sahuque Realty Company, Inc. (“Sahuque”)); Crosby v. Sahuque Realty Co., 17-0424 (La. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Alexander v. La. State Board of Private Investigator Examiners
green
1 sentence2021Alexander I, p. 27, 211 So.3d at 562 . 14 The remainder of Mr. Alexander’s claims regarding perjury in Mr. Alexander’s affidavit are confusing and appear to be pretexts and “red herrings” designed to circumvent a prescription claim. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kirt v. Metzinger
neutral
1 sentence2019App. 4 Cir. 6/19/19), 274 So.3d 1271 , 1273 (citing Wells Fargo, supra, and observing that the legal correctness of a trial court’s ruling on a prescription exception is reviewed under a de novo standard). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Montalvo v. Sondes
green
1 sentence2017Ms. Snavely has asserted a prescription exception in this court, which we may consider pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 2163. 2 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 863, which was derived from Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and provides for sanctions for improper pleadings, "does not create a private cause of action, but is rather a remedial tool available to the court." Montalvo v. Sondes, 93-2813 (La. 5/23/94), n.6, 637 So.2d 127 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Federal Railroad Administration
green
1 sentence2016Although it would appear that the trial court erred in considering the materials attached to the memorandums in support and in opposition to the prescription exception, see Our Lady of the Lake Hosp. v. Vanner, 95-0754, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/15/95), 669 So.2d 463, 465 , cert. denied, 525 U.S. 818 , 119 S.Ct. 57 , 142 L.Ed.2d 45 (1998), we note there was no objection to consideration of the evidence at the trial court level or on appeal. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Brient v. Petro PSC, LP
green
1 sentence2016Although it would appear that the trial court erred in considering the materials attached to the memorandums in support and in opposition to the prescription exception, see Our Lady of the Lake Hosp. v. Vanner, 95-0754, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/15/95), 669 So.2d 463, 465 , cert. denied, 525 U.S. 818 , 119 S.Ct. 57 , 142 L.Ed.2d 45 (1998), we note there was no objection to consideration of the evidence at the trial court level or on appeal. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
City of Atlantic City v. Pevner
red
1 sentence2016Although it would appear that the trial court erred in considering the materials attached to the memorandums in support and in opposition to the prescription exception, see Our Lady of the Lake Hosp. v. Vanner, 95-0754, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/15/95), 669 So.2d 463, 465 , cert. denied, 525 U.S. 818 , 119 S.Ct. 57 , 142 L.Ed.2d 45 (1998), we note there was no objection to consideration of the evidence at the trial court level or on appeal. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Smith v. Brooks
green
1 sentence2016Smith v. Brooks, 97-1338, 714 So.2d 735 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/15/98). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Our Lady of the Lake Hosp. v. Vanner
green
1 sentence2016Although it would appear that the trial court erred in considering the materials attached to the memorandums in support and in opposition to the prescription exception, see Our Lady of the Lake Hosp. v. Vanner, 95-0754, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/15/95), 669 So.2d 463, 465 , cert. denied, 525 U.S. 818 , 119 S.Ct. 57 , 142 L.Ed.2d 45 (1998), we note there was no objection to consideration of the evidence at the trial court level or on appeal. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
White v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016On appeal, defendants cite the fourth circuit case of White v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 2003-2074 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/16/04) , 878 So.2d 786 , in support of their position that the trial court erred in not determining whether the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction before ruling on the prescription exception. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Scheffler v. Adams and Reese, LLP green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
McCarthy v. Evolution Petroleum Corp.
green
1 sentence2016Discussion Exception of No Cause of Action The exception of no cause of action tests “the legal sufficiency of the petition joy determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts as alleged in the petition.” McCarthy v. Evolution Petroleum Corp., 14-2607, p. 4 (La.10/14/15), 180 So.3d 252, 257 . (quoting Scheffler v. Adams and Reese, LLP, 06-1774, p. 4 (La.2/22/07), 950 So.2d 641, 646 .) “The exception is triable on the face of the pleadings, and, for purposes of resolving the issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the petition must be accepted as true.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Saia v. Asher
green
1 sentence2016Saia v. Asher, 2001-1038, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/10/02), 825 So.2d 1257, 1260-1261 . . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Noble v. ESTATE OF MELIUS
neutral
2 sentences2016Noble v. Estate of Melius, 10-549 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/9/11) , 62 So.3d 222 . 2016Noble v. Estate of Melius, 10-549 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/9/11) , 62 So.3d 222 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Smith v. Doe green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| United States v. Halper red | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Hudson v. United States green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Mallett v. McNeal green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Brown v. Floyd neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Jenkins v. Starns green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Reed v. Mid-States Wood Preservers, Inc. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Montgomery v. Breaux green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Reed v. Abney neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Clark v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Demma v. Automobile Club green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| CAPITAL HOUSE PRESERVATION CO. v. Perryman Consultants neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Barrios v. Lambar, Inc. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.
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.