Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Melancon v. Continental Casualty Company, 307 So. 2d 308.

69 citing documents.

Aucoin v. Baton Rouge Jaycees, Inc. 491 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Such a motion grants to counsel the right to take “steps” toward prosecution of his client’s case, but does not itself constitute such a “step.” the Supreme Court, per Marcus, J., observed, in pertinent part, as follows: ...
Michel v. Home Town Supermarket, Inc. 493 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Gibson v. Valentine Sugars, Inc. 485 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Fontenot v. Blue Cross Ass'n 485 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Highlands Ins. Co. v. City of Lafayette 453 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
I. The Louisiana Supreme Court set forth broad principles recently in Chevron Oil Company v. Traigle, supra, which drew heavily on previous pronouncements, (La.
Delta Development Co., Inc. v. Jurgens 456 So. 2d 145 La. 1984
Acosta v. Hepplewhite Home, Inc. 450 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Delta Development Co. v. Jurgens 446 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
“Thus, both historically and theorti-cally, the rule on abandonment of actions is a species of liberative prescription....”
Chevron Oil Co. v. Traigle 436 So. 2d 530 La. 1983
Rollins v. Causey 427 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Pelto Oil Co. v. Collector of Revenue 424 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
This provision shall be operative without formal order, but on ex parte motion of any party or other *1224 interested person, the trial court shall enter a formal order of dismissal as of the date of its abandonment.” the Supreme Court of Louisiana interpreted Article 561 as follows: “By its clear and unambiguous wording, article 561 requires three things of the plaintiff: (1) that he take some ‘step’ in the prosecution of his lawsuit, (2) that he do so in the trial court, and (3) that he do so
In re the Succession of Overton 422 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
in footnote 2 at p. 312, the court stated: “Several decisions appear to find that any plea by a defendant to the merits of a case, even if filed after the five-year period has run, constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s right to seek a dismissal of the action on grounds of abandonment.
Hamiter v. Hamiter 414 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Ellzey v. EMPLOYERS MUT. LIABILITY INS. CO. 388 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
the court interpreted the requirement of LSA-C.C.P.
Murphy v. Hurdle Planting & Livestock Co. 364 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
National Food Stores of La., Inc. v. Chustz 361 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
(Emphasis added) which discusses the only two exceptions to the Article 561 rule of abandonment: "As noted in the original comments appended to article 561, two early exceptions to the five-year rule of abandonment contained in article 3519 were recognized: *275 (1) when the failure to prosecute was caused by circumstances
Guedry Finance Co. v. Sanderson 357 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Edwards v. Giambrone 353 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
the court said: "By its clear and unambiguous wording, article 561 requires three things of the plaintiff: (1) that he take some `step' in the prosecution of his lawsuit, (2) that he do so in the trial court, and (3) that he do so within five years of the last `step' taken by either party."
Gros v. Houma Medical & Surgical Clinic 343 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Melancon v. Continental Casualty Company, La., (1975); Murphy v. Hurdle Planting and Livestock, Inc., La.App., (1st Cir., 1976).