Duhe v. Lindsey

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Duhe v. Lindsey

131 So. 3d 62, 2014 WL 464627, 2014 La. LEXIS 266

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 27, 2014

DocketNo. 2013-CC-2514

StatusPublished

This text of 131 So. 3d 62 (Duhe v. Lindsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duhe v. Lindsey, 131 So. 3d 62, 2014 WL 464627, 2014 La. LEXIS 266 (La. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 09-10540; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1119.

Granted. The judgment of the district court denying the exception of prescription is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court to make a determination as to whether plaintiffs’ October 4, 2012 petition naming Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co. as a defendant relates back to the September 12, 2012 petition naming Progressive Security Ins. Co. as a defendant. See Ray v. Alexandria Mall, 434 So.2d 1083 (La.1983). The district court should then reconsider the exception of prescription in light of its finding on this issue.

JOHNSON, C.J., and WEIMER and HUGHES, JJ., would deny.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 09-10540; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1119.

Granted. The judgment of the district court denying the exception of prescription is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court to make a determination as to whether plaintiffs’ October 4, 2012 petition naming Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co. as a defendant relates back to the September 12, 2012 petition naming Progressive Security Ins. Co. as a defendant. See Ray v. Alexandria Mall, 434 So.2d 1083 (La.1983). The district court should then reconsider the exception of prescription in light of its finding on this issue.

JOHNSON, C.J., and WEIMER and HUGHES, JJ., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 So. 3d 62, 2014 WL 464627, 2014 La. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duhe-v-lindsey-la-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack