describing the Louisiana doctrine of “contra non valentem agere non currit praescriptio, which means prescription does not run against a person who could not bring suit”
How later courts described this case
- describing the Louisiana doctrine of “contra non valentem agere non currit praescriptio, which means prescription does not run against a person who could not bring suit”
- “[W]e find La. R.S. 9:5605 clearly provides three peremptive periods . . . .”
- identifying these three peremptive periods
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Gibsland Bank & Trust Co. v. Kitchens, Benton, Kitchens & Black (APLC), 2013 La. App. LEXIS 938 (2013)
The trial court, however, focusing solely on the fact that the instant case is not one of continuous representation, found that Jenkins was inapplicable and that the bank’s claim was not per-empted as the first reasonable notice of the law firm’s malpractice was the Second Circuit’s August 11, 2010, adverse ruling, and suit was filed within one year of that date.
The opinion
CLARK, Justice,
dissenting for reasons assigned by Justice JOHNSON.
hi dissent from the majority opinion for the reasons assigned by Justice Johnson.