DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

231 citing documents.

  • Bell v. Kreider 890 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), , in which the supreme court found that the defendant insurer’s unconditional tender of benefits to satisfy statutory requirements 5 served as an acknowledgment and, thus, a waiver that recommenced running of the three-year abandonment period.
  • C & B Sales & Service, Inc. v. Ralph Slaughter, SEC. of Dept. of Revenue & Taxation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    5/15/01), (footnotes omitted).
  • C & B Sales & Service, Inc. v. Slaughter 885 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Co., 00-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), (footnotes omitted).
  • Isaac v. Benson Chevrolet Co. 885 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01)
  • Paternostro v. Falgoust 897 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 00-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), .
  • Roberts v. New Orleans Symphony 883 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Co., XXXX-XXXX, p. 5-6 (La.5/15/01), (footnotes and emphasis omitted).
  • Case v. St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office 872 So. 2d 504 La. 2004
    Ins., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
  • DeGruy v. Jenkins 863 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Co., 00-3010, p. 15 (La.5/15/01), .
  • Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 861 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    In Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., XXXX-XXXX, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed three legal requirements that La.
  • Bryant v. City of Monroe 859 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    James v. Formosa Plastics Corp. of Louisiana, 01-2056 (La.04/03/02), ; Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 00-3010 (La.05/15/01), .
  • In Re Succession of Wright 855 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 00-3010 (La.05/15/01), .
  • Williams v. Abadie 857 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.5/15/01), .
  • Moore v. Eden Gardens Nursing Center 850 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
  • Barrois v. Burrus 854 So. 2d 941 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Co., 00-3010,(La.5/15/01); , (La.App.
  • Mosley v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 839 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
  • Pichon v. Reynolds 841 So. 2d 756 La. 2003
    Co., 00-3010, p. 8 (La.5/15/01), , the filing by the defendant of a motion to dismiss three of the five plaintiffs constituted a step in the overall defense of the case, because it substantially changed the position of the parties by tending to reduce the defendant's exposure to damages.
  • Bertrand v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 838 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., XXXX-XXXX, pp. 5-6, (La.5/15/01), , the supreme court thoroughly analyzed the abandonment issue and explained the plaintiff's burden under La.Code Civ.P.
  • Bertrand v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 838 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    In Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2000-3010, pp. 5-6, (La.5/15/01), , the supreme court thoroughly analyzed the abandonment issue and explained the plaintiffs burden under La.Code Civ.P.
  • Harrington v. GLENWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL 833 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Clark v. State Farm, 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
  • Lion Investbanc Corp. v. River Products, Inc. 831 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Co., 00-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), .
  • Madison v. Touro Infirmary 826 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Co., 2000-30, pp. 5-6 (La.5/15/01), -784 .
  • State, Dept. of Transp. v. Cole Oil 822 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), .
  • Causey v. Caterpillar MacHinery Corp. 822 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Co., 00-3010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), .
  • Mouton v. Patch 819 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Co., 00-8010, p. 6 (La.5/15/01); .
  • James v. Formosa Plastics Corp. of La. 813 So. 2d 335 La. 2002
    Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01)
  • Naccari v. Namer 809 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.5/15/01), , the court, in Footnote 3, noted that it was mindful that the result it was reaching would likely not be embraced by every member of the First Circuit or the Louisiana Supreme Court.
  • Reed v. Finklestein 807 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.5/15/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: Abandonment is not a punitive concept; rather, it [is] a balancing concept.
  • Johnson v. Berg Mechanical Industries 803 So. 2d 1067 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Abandonment was discussed at great length in Clark v. State Farm, 2000-30 (La.5/15/01), .
  • Theriot v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 809 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Co., 2000-30, p. 6 (La.5/15/01), .
  • Box v. French Market Corp. 798 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Co, 00-3010, p. 6, (La.5/15/01); .
  • In Re Medical Review Panel of Jones 801 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    As the Louisiana Supreme Court noted in Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 00-3010, p. 11 (La.5/15/01), , given the balancing function served by abandonment statutes, Louisiana's jurisprudence tends to be inconsistent, and no bright lines exist.