Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Chevron Oil Co. v. Traigle, 436 So. 2d 530.

115 citing documents.

Mosley v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 839 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Prior to these 1989 amendments, , 532 La.1983), held that formal action "before the court and on the record" was necessary for a "step" in the prosecution.
Bias v. Vincent 832 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Rickey v. Fetty, 96-2762 (La.App.
State, Dept. of Transp. v. Cole Oil 822 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Pichon v. Reynolds 828 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
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
(emphasis added) the relators argue that action must be taken in the trial court and on the record to constitute a step in the prosecution of the case; thus, the letter dated September 22, 1998 does not constitute a step in the prosecution of the case.
Reed v. Finklestein 807 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 785 So. 2d 779 La. 2001
Brown v. City of Shreveport Urban Dev. 786 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Willey v. Roberts, 95-1037 (La.
Woodward v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 808 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Benjamin-Jenkins v. Lawson 781 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Gallagher v. Cook 775 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Breaux v. Auto Zone, Inc. 787 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Richey v. Fetty, 96-2762 (La.App.
Porter v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. 771 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 769 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Alexander v. Liberty Terrace Subdivision, Inc. 761 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Lizama v. Williams 759 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Burkett v. Resolution Trust Corp. 757 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Brister v. Manville Forest Products 749 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Hargis Ex Rel. Krey v. Jefferson Parish 748 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Manale v. EXECUTIVE HEALTHCARE RECRUITERS 747 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Haley v. Galuszka 744 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Thus, because his April 1989 payment cannot be considered a “formal action, before the court and on the record,” Mr. Galuszka argues that it cannot be found to have interrupted the period for abandonment under Article 561.
Seagrave v. Dean 739 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
[4] (submission of a case for decision after five-year abandonment period constituted waiver); (La.App.
Weldon v. Weldon 737 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Varnado v. Gentilly Medical Clinic for Women 728 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
FAMILY FEDERAL SAV. AND LOAN ASS'N v. Huckaby 714 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Haisty v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 25,670 (La.App.2d Cir. 3/30/94), .
Louisiana Central Credit Union v. LeBlanc 721 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
wherein the court held at 534: By allowing a suit to be submitted for decision, the defendant clearly consents to have the matter resolved on the merits.
State v. Holleman 707 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Parson v. Daigle 708 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Harris v. Harris 687 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Nevertheless, that a court errs if it interprets Article 561 as indicating that the defendant, once abandonment has occurred, cannot do anything which can constitute a waiver.
Campbell v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest 671 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Willey v. Roberts 664 So. 2d 1371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Viesel v. Republic Ins. Co. 665 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
our Supreme Court succinctly stated: "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 par
Jones v. Phelps 665 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Picone v. Lyons 653 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Modeliste v. Sehorn 653 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
532 n. 1 (La.1983), plaintiff also argues that the serving of interrogatories is a "step" for purposes of Article 561.
Maddie v. Fidelity National Bank 641 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Haisty v. STATE, DOTD 634 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Dept. of Transp. & Dev. v. Waste Mgt. 626 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Nora v. Stanford 625 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
art. 561, a “step” in the prosecution or defense is taken when a party “takes formal action, before the court and on the record, intended to hasten the matter to judgment.”
Freedlander, Inc. v. Certain 623 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
1st Cir. 1982), rev'd on other grounds American Eagle, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp., Ltd., (La.App.
Zion v. Stockfieth 616 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Stockfieth and Chevron, and cases cited therein, argue that the judgment setting aside the dismissal was in error because the attorney's letter was neither formally filed nor did it appear in the record.
Sassau v. Louisiana Workover Service, Inc. 607 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Production Specialties, Inc. v. Century Oil Tool Co., Inc. 602 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Courtney v. Henderson 602 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Teague v. Scott 597 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Art. 561, on appeal after remand, (La.App.
Kambur v. Kambur 583 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Donald G. Lambert Contractor v. State 577 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Barber v. Bozeman 577 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Sterling v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania 572 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991