Cited by

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

231 citing documents.

Tessier v. Pratt 7 So. 3d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2000-3010, pp. 5-6 (La.5/15/01), ; Hardy v. A. Wilbert’s Sons, L.L.C., 2006-1093, p. 5 (La.App.
Tranchant v. State 5 So. 3d 832 La. 2009
Co., 00-3010, p. 9 (La.5/15/01), ( (La.App.
Brown v. Kidney & Hypertension Associates, L.L.P. 5 So. 3d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Jackson v. Moock 4 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Stanley v. ST. CHARLES GAMING COMPANY, INC. 997 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Troy Morgan v. Louisiana dept.of Pub. Saf.& Corr La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Krista Stanley v. St. Charles Gaming Company, Inc., D/B/A Isle of Capri Casino-Lake Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
London Livery, Ltd. v. Brinks 3 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Co., 2000-3010, p. 7 (La.5/15/01), .
True Gospel of Jesus Christ Church Ministry v. Doucette 999 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Co., 00-3010, p. 7 (La.5/15/01), .
Liner v. Ippolito 991 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Co., 00-3010, p. 10 (La.5/15/07), , 787 "that any reasonable doubt about abandonment should be resolved in favor of allowing the prosecution of the claim and against dismissal for abandonment," mandates a reversal of the trial court's dismissal of their action, especially where a plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that he does not intend to abandon th
Duplechian v. Sba Network Services, Inc. 980 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Lambert v. Roussel 991 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Clark *11 v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 00-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), .
Whitewing and Whitewing Oil Company, LLC v. Energy Drilling Company, Inc. 978 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Brown v. Michaels Stores, Inc. 980 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Co., 00-3010 at pp. 5-6, (La.5/15/01), .
Padua v. Gray 975 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Co., XXXX-XXXX, pp. 5-6 (La.5/15/01), .
Explained Boudreaux v. SIMONEAUD GROCERY & MARKET 972 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
As explained in Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), , a party's right to assert abandonment may be waived.
Explained Darryl Boudreaux v. Simoneaud Grocery & Market, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
5/15/01), a party’s right to assert abandonment may be waived.
Harris v. Stogner 967 So. 2d 1151 La. 2007
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Dendy v. City Nat. Bank 977 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Co., 00-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), .
Hardy v. A. WILBERT'S SONS, LLC 970 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, XXXX-XXXX, pp. 5-6 (La.5/15/01), .
Miremont v. Miremont 962 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Kethley v. Jack & Kethley 961 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Clark v. State Farm, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/15/01), .
Anthony Lyons v. Wayne Dohman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Lyons v. Dohman 958 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Hidalgo v. Catfish Queen Partnership in Commendam 961 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Co., 2000-3010, pp. 5-6 (La.5/15/01), .
Escoffier v. City of New Orleans 957 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Co., 00-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), .
Thibaut Oil Co. v. Holly 961 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Co., 2000-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), (footnotes omitted).
Virginia Johnson v. Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Dept. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Johnson v. Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Dept. 951 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Furr v. Pearce & LeBlanc, Inc. 948 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.5/15/01), , the court discussed this statute at length and made the following rulings.
Mallett v. McNeal 939 So. 2d 1254 La. 2006
Co., 00-3010, pp. 18-21 (La.5/15/01), -93 .
Satterthwaite v. Byais 943 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), -87 .
Meyers Ex Rel. Meyers v. New Orleans 932 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Co., XXXX-XXXX, pp. 5-6 (La.5/15/01), ).
Haydel v. State Farm Insurance Co. 935 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 2000-3010, p. 21 (La.5/15/01), (issue before the court was abandonment, and not specifically the viability of coverage, but the statement speaks to the purpose and operation of the statute)
Slaughter v. ARCO Chemical Company 931 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Co., 00-3010, p. 15 (La.5/15/01), .
Lee v. Commodore Holdings, Ltd. 931 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Co., 00-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), .
Springer v. Louisiana Board of Registration 929 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
“Article 561 provides that abandonment is self-executing; it occurs automatically upon the passing of three-years without a step being taken by either party, and is effective without court order.” 2 Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 00-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), .
Voisin v. INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES 924 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), , the supreme court discussed three legal requirements that LSA-C.C.P.
Jackson v. BASF Corp. 927 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
2 Cir. 09/24/03) -29 , writ denied, 03-2969 (La.01/16/04), , citing Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 00-3010 pp. 5-6, (La.05/15/01), .
Radiology Specialty Group v. National Union Fire Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
5/15/01), (emphasis added).
Radiology Specialty Group v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. 916 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Co., 00-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), (emphasis added).
Stemley v. Foti 914 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), , the supreme court observed: Abandonment is not a punitive concept; rather, it ( sic ) a balancing concept.
Bibeau v. Forest Manor Nursing Home 917 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
Olavarrieta v. St. Pierre 902 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Co., XXXX-XXXX, p. 5-6 (La.5/15/01), (footnotes and emphasis omitted).
Hica Steel Foundry v. Arklatex Env. Consul. 899 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), , wherein the supreme court stated that the fundamental premise of abandonment analysis for discovery and other actions conducted "off the court record" is whether the defendant had notice of the same.
Goldston v. State 894 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), , for the proposition that abandonment statutes should be construed liberally in favor of maintaining the plaintiffs suit, rather than dismissing it.
Lemlem v. Adams 906 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 00-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), .
Norma Henry v. United Southern Assurance Co. and Lionel D. Rosette, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
5/15/01), (footnotes omitted).
Henry v. United Southern Assurance Co. 893 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Co., 00-3010, p. 6, (La.5/15/01), (footnotes omitted).
Gross v. Pieno 892 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), , the court said: Article 561 provides that abandonment is self-executing; it occurs automatically upon the passing of three-years without a step being taken by either party, and it is effective without court order.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by