DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., 419 So. 2d 878.

20 citing documents.

  • Estate of Ehrhardt v. Jefferson Parish Fire Department 108 So. 3d 1223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    ISSUES ON APPEAL On appeal, plaintiff raises four assignments of error: (1) the WCJ’s partial grant of the exception of prescription is contrary to the Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., (2) the signed mediation agreement, subsequent agreement with court and counsel and other factors constitute an acknowledgment of claim sufficient to interrupt prescription; (3) the WCJ’s determination is contrary to the stated policy goals and objectives of Lo
  • Sims v. American Insurance Co. 101 So. 3d 1 La. 2012
    Subsequent to Levy v. Stelly, this Court decided two other relevant cases, Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., each holding that Article 3463’s provision that “[i]nterruption is considered never to have occurred if the plaintiff abandons, voluntarily dismisses or fails to prosecute the suit at the trial,” only applies where the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses
  • Boyd v. Farmers Ins. Exchange 973 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    In Dark v. Marshall, supra , we interpreted the second sentence of Article 3463 after reviewing the amendment to that article that occurred after the Louisiana Supreme Court's important holding in He-bert, v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc.
  • Dark v. Marshall 945 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Both parties discuss the Louisiana Supreme Court's significant ruling in Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., and the amendment to the language of Article 3463 brought about by that ruling.
  • Pierce v. Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc. 906 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    [1] Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., -881 (La.1982)(interpreting prior LSA-C.C.
  • Williams v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp. 747 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    See Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., Batiste v. Big D Dirt Service, 95-113 (La.App.
  • Distinguished Security National Partners v. Kothe 703 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    We find the ease of Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., relied upon by appellant, distinguishable on the facts.
  • Oliver v. Davis 679 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Howard v. Trelles 669 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    App. 1st Cir.1991); Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc.
  • Adams v. Dupree 663 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Plaintiff cites Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., (La.App.
  • Batiste v. Big D Dirt Service 663 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    In Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile Cadillac GMC, Inc., -881 (La.1982), the supreme court stated in pertinent part that: We accordingly conclude that Article 3519’s provision (regarding the effect of the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissal of a demand on that demand’s interruption of prescription) applies only to a voluntary *336 dismissal prior to a general appearance by
  • Jones v. Department of Transportation & Development 659 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., -881 (La.1982); (La.App.
  • Beckham v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Citing Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., the supreme court noted that to maintain Liberty Mutual's plea of prescription, Roger must have voluntarily dismissed his claims prior to the defendants in that action making a general appearance.
  • Bradley v. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 613 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    In Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile Cadillac GMC, Inc., the trial court granted a joint motion of the parties to dismiss without prejudice on the day of trial, the suit was refiled weeks later, and defendants pled prescription based on La.C.C.
  • HOUSTON GEN. INS. CO. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 612 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    In Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., -881 (La.1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court, in interpreting LSA-C.C.
  • Henderson v. Meshell 579 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Hebert v. Cournoyer Olds-Cadillac-GMC, Inc., [3] (La.App.
  • Provident Life and Acc. Ins. v. Turner 582 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    [8] In Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., (La.
  • Roger v. Estate of Moulton 513 So. 2d 1126 La. 1987
    In Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., we held La.Civ.Code art. 3519 (now art. 3463) does not apply after the defendant has made a general appearance, because after the defendant answers the trial court is vested with the discretion to dismiss the suit with prejudice.
  • Plaisance v. Loop, Inc. 499 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • RGC Investments, Inc. v. Almerico 435 So. 2d 1043 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    our Supreme Court stated, at page 880, "Because the voluntary dismissal occurred after defendants' answer, the trial court was vested with discretion to dismiss the suit with or without prejudice.