Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 785 So. 2d 779.

231 citing documents.

Bailey v. Bailey 260 So. 3d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Martin v. Nat'l City Mortg. Co. 261 So. 3d 144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
5/15/01), ; Allen v. Humphrey , 51,331 (La.
Taylor v. Dash Equip. & Supplies, Inc. 258 So. 3d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
5/15/01), , 784 (footnotes omitted), and stated as follows: Article 561 has been construed as imposing three requirements on plaintiffs.
Brooks Taylor v. Dash Equipment & Supplies, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
5/15/01), (footnotes omitted), and stated as follows: Article 561 has been construed as imposing three requirements on plaintiffs.
Michael Neal Rollins v. State of Louisiana Through the Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Rollins v. State 240 So. 3d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
City of Baton Rouge v. R.G. Claitor's Realty 241 So. 3d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
5/15/01), , 787, our supreme court explained that abandonment is a prescription-based concept.
Margaret Fisk Munro v. British American Oil Producing Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
5/15/01), (wherein the supreme court explained that Article 561 requires that: 1) a party takes some step in the prosecution or defense of the litigation; 2) the step, other than formal discovery, must appear in the record; and that 3) the step must have been taken place within three years of the last step taken by a party.
Margaret Fisk Munro v. British American Oil Producing Co. 235 So. 3d 1162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
5/15/01), , (wherein the supreme court explained that Article 561 requires that: 1) a party-takes some step in the prosecution or defense of the litigation; .2) the step, other than formal discovery, must appear in the record; and that 3) .the.
Barry Giglio and Marla Giglio v. State of Louisiana, Department Child and Family Services La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Giglio v. State, Department of Child & Family Services 227 So. 3d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Juengain v. Tervalon 223 So. 3d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
5/15/01), , 784 and collecting cases).
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Estate of Rowe 224 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
5/15/01), ; Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Aero-Mech Inc., 50,-608 (La.
Kevin Barber v. Derick Jefferson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
5/15/01), Hidalgo v. Catfish Queen P’ship in Commendam, 06-1531 (La.App.
Barber v. Jefferson 221 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
5/15/01), ; Hidalgo v. Catfish Queen P’ship in Commendam, 06-1531 (La.App.
Allen v. Humphrey 218 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
R.L. Lucien Tile Co. v. Solid Rock Co. 215 So. 3d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
5/15/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that Article 561 has been construed as imposing three requirements on plaintiffs: (1) a party take some “step” in the prosecution or defense of the action; (2) the step must be taken in the proceeding and, with the exception of formal discovery, must appear in the record |7of th
Lacassagne v. Oster Development, Inc. 215 So. 3d 914 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
5/15/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that Article 561 imposes three requirements to avoid abandonment: (1) a party takes a step in the prosecution or defense of the action; (2) the step must be taken in the proceeding and, with the exception of formal discovery, must appear in the record of the suit; and (3) the st
Nunez v. Burgos 215 So. 3d 931 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Doucette v. Guient 208 So. 3d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
5/15/01), (stating that “examples of conduct by defendants that have been held sufficient to waive abandonment include agreeing to a trial setting, submitting the case for decision, seeking security for costs, or provoking or responding to discovery.”) (internal citations omitted).
Savoie v. Larmarque Ford, Inc. 205 So. 3d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
D.W. Thomas & Son, Inc. v. Gregory 210 So. 3d 825 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
05/15/01), ; Hudson v. Town & Country Nursing Center, L.L.C., 49,581 (La.App.
Robert Rideau v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
5/15/01), our supreme court held that La.Code Civ.P.
Rideau v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 201 So. 3d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
5/15/01), , our supreme court held that La.Code Civ.P.
Hibernia National Bank v. Aero-Mech, Inc. 215 So. 3d 350 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Co., 2000-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Gordon v. Gordon 195 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Co., 00-3010, p. 15 (La.5/15/01), , The Louisiana Supreme Court held that “[a]n acknowledgment is ⅛ simple admission of liability resulting in the interruption of prescription-that has commenced to run, but not accrued, and may be made on an infomal basis’” Clark, 00-3010, pp. 19-20, 785 So.2d at 792
Lewis v. Jones 193 So. 3d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01)
State ex rel. Division of Administration, Office of Community Development v. Tujague 193 So. 3d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Claiborne Medical Corp. v. ABC Insurance Co. 185 So. 3d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Felo v. Ochsner Medical Center-Westbank, LLC 182 So. 3d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Lewis v. Digital Cable & Communications North 179 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Succession of Linda Aymond Roberts La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
5/15/01), ” This court, in Morgan v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 08-750, p. 3 (La.App.
Succession of Roberts 178 So. 3d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .” This court, in Morgan v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 08-750, p. 3 (La.App.
Segerstrom v. Julian 178 So. 3d 1116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Co,, 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
A & B Bolt & Supply, Inc. v. Whitco Supply, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
5/15/01), (footnotes omitted).
A & B Bolt & Supply, Inc. v. Whitco Supply, L.L.C. 167 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), (footnotes omitted).
Bryon P. Guillory, Et Ux. v. Pelican Real Estate, Inc. 165 So. 3d 875 La. 2015
While our opinion in Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 00-3010, p. 11 (La.5/15/01), suggested there are some parallels between the concept of abandonment and liberative prescription, we find absolutely no authority for engrafting the general rules of prescription into the law of abandonment.
Hudson v. Town & Country Nursing Center, LLC 162 So. 3d 632 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Co., 2000-3010 (La.5/15/01), ; Koutroulis v. Centennial Healthcare Corp., 38,068 (La.App.2d Cir.4/14/10), .
Hercules Offshore, Inc. v. Lafayette Parish School Board, Sales and Use Tax Dept. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Hercules Offshore, Inc. v. Lafayette Parish School Board, Sales & Use Tax Dept. 157 So. 3d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Bell v. Louisiana State Police 168 So. 3d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Delacruz v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. 157 So. 3d 790 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2014
Co., 00-3010, p. 8 (La.5/15/01), ; See also Williams v. Abadie, 03-0605, p. 4 (La.
City of Baton Rouge v. Smuggy's Corp. 156 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), -87 ; Satterthwaite v. Byais, 05-0010 (La.App.
Lillian E. Landaiche Roy v. Sheriff Bill Belt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Roy v. Belt 149 So. 3d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Co., 00-3010, p. 9 (La.5/15/01), .
Johnson v. American Bell Federal Credit Union 149 So. 3d 1267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Co., 2000-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Byron P. Guillory, Et Ux. v. Pelican Real Estate, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
5/15/01), abandonment was recognized as a form of liberative prescription and, therefore, “subject to prescription-based exceptions.” The Civil Code provides in Article 1799, “The interruption of prescription against one solidary obligor is effective against all solidary obligors,” and in Article 3503, “When prescripti
Guillory v. Pelican Real Estate, Inc. 143 So. 3d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 00-3010, p. 11 (La.5/15/01), , abandonment was recognized as a form of liberative prescription and, therefore, “subject to prescription-based exceptions.” The Civil Code provides in Article 1799, “The interruption of prescription against one solidary obligor is effective against all solidary obligors,” and in Article 3503, “When prescription
Dishman & Bennett Specialty Co. v. Quality Production Services, L.L.C. 139 So. 3d 991 La. 2014
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), (explaining that the abandonment article was not intended to dismiss those cases in which a plaintiff has clearly demonstrated before the court during the prescribed period that he does not intend to abandon the action).
Stephens v. Stephens 137 So. 3d 1242 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Co., 00-3010 (La.05/15/01), .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by