laches doctrine in Louisiana

1986The case of Labarre v. Rateau, 210 La. 34 , 26 So.2d 279 (1946) was cited in the Molero case wherein the Court reported: “The court in Labarre stated, ‘The laches doctrine addresses itself exclusively to the evidentiary effect of delay.’ (Emphasis supplied.) The defendants failed to establish their plea of laches, since they failed to show anything other than the occurrence of a lapse of time.

1986The case of Labarre v. Rateau, 210 La. 34 , 26 So.2d 279 (1946) was cited in the Molero case wherein the Court reported: “The court in Labarre stated, ‘The laches doctrine addresses itself exclusively to the evidentiary effect of delay.’ (Emphasis supplied.) The defendants failed to establish their plea of laches, since they failed to show anything other than the occurrence of a lapse of time.

2007Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, 04-2482 (La.4/12/05), 898 So.2d 1260 , in which this court repudiated the doctrine of laches.

2007Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, 04-2482 (La.4/12/05), 898 So.2d 1260 , in which this court repudiated the doctrine of laches.

2005See T.D. v. M.M.M., 98-0167 (La.3/2/99), 730 So.2d 873 ; Ponds v. Treen, 407 So.2d 671 (La.1981) (“a recall petition is deemed abandoned by laches when the recall petitioners do not actively pursue their remedy ... ”); McCraine v. Hondo Boats, Inc., 399 So.2d 163 (La.1981) (“federal substantive admiralty or maritime law(including the doctrine of laches) applies if the claim is one in admiralty”); Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Edwards, 387 So.2d 1137 (La.1980) (“The doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to prevent disciplinary action unless the respondent has been prejudiced in his defense by the

2005See T.D. v. M.M.M., 98-0167 (La.3/2/99), 730 So.2d 873 ; Ponds v. Treen, 407 So.2d 671 (La.1981) (“a recall petition is deemed abandoned by laches when the recall petitioners do not actively pursue their remedy ... ”); McCraine v. Hondo Boats, Inc., 399 So.2d 163 (La.1981) (“federal substantive admiralty or maritime law(including the doctrine of laches) applies if the claim is one in admiralty”); Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Edwards, 387 So.2d 1137 (La.1980) (“The doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to prevent disciplinary action unless the respondent has been prejudiced in his defense by the

2005See T.D. v. M.M.M., 98-0167 (La.3/2/99), 730 So.2d 873 ; Ponds v. Treen, 407 So.2d 671 (La.1981) ("a recall petition is deemed abandoned by laches when the recall petitioners do not actively pursue their remedy..."); McCraine v. Hondo Boats, Inc., 399 So.2d 163 (La.1981) ("federal substantive admiralty or maritime law(including the doctrine of laches) applies if the claim is one in admiralty"); Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Edwards, 387 So.2d 1137 (La.1980) ("The doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to prevent disciplinary action unless the respondent has been prejudiced in his defense by the d

2005See T.D. v. M.M.M., 98-0167 (La.3/2/99), 730 So.2d 873 ; Ponds v. Treen, 407 So.2d 671 (La.1981) (“a recall petition is deemed abandoned by laches when the recall petitioners do not actively pursue their remedy ... ”); McCraine v. Hondo Boats, Inc., 399 So.2d 163 (La.1981) (“federal substantive admiralty or maritime law(including the doctrine of laches) applies if the claim is one in admiralty”); Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Edwards, 387 So.2d 1137 (La.1980) (“The doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to prevent disciplinary action unless the respondent has been prejudiced in his defense by the

2005See T.D. v. M.M.M., 98-0167 (La.3/2/99), 730 So.2d 873 ; Ponds v. Treen, 407 So.2d 671 (La.1981) (“a recall petition is deemed abandoned by laches when the recall petitioners do not actively pursue their remedy ... ”); McCraine v. Hondo Boats, Inc., 399 So.2d 163 (La.1981) (“federal substantive admiralty or maritime law(including the doctrine of laches) applies if the claim is one in admiralty”); Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Edwards, 387 So.2d 1137 (La.1980) (“The doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to prevent disciplinary action unless the respondent has been prejudiced in his defense by the

2005See T.D. v. M.M.M., 98-0167 (La.3/2/99), 730 So.2d 873 ; Ponds v. Treen, 407 So.2d 671 (La.1981) (“a recall petition is deemed abandoned by laches when the recall petitioners do not actively pursue their remedy ... ”); McCraine v. Hondo Boats, Inc., 399 So.2d 163 (La.1981) (“federal substantive admiralty or maritime law(including the doctrine of laches) applies if the claim is one in admiralty”); Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Edwards, 387 So.2d 1137 (La.1980) (“The doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to prevent disciplinary action unless the respondent has been prejudiced in his defense by the

2005See T.D. v. M.M.M., 98-0167 (La.3/2/99), 730 So.2d 873 ; Ponds v. Treen, 407 So.2d 671 (La.1981) ("a recall petition is deemed abandoned by laches when the recall petitioners do not actively pursue their remedy..."); McCraine v. Hondo Boats, Inc., 399 So.2d 163 (La.1981) ("federal substantive admiralty or maritime law(including the doctrine of laches) applies if the claim is one in admiralty"); Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Edwards, 387 So.2d 1137 (La.1980) ("The doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to prevent disciplinary action unless the respondent has been prejudiced in his defense by the d

2005See T.D. v. M.M.M., 98-0167 (La.3/2/99), 730 So.2d 873 ; Ponds v. Treen, 407 So.2d 671 (La.1981) (“a recall petition is deemed abandoned by laches when the recall petitioners do not actively pursue their remedy ... ”); McCraine v. Hondo Boats, Inc., 399 So.2d 163 (La.1981) (“federal substantive admiralty or maritime law(including the doctrine of laches) applies if the claim is one in admiralty”); Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Edwards, 387 So.2d 1137 (La.1980) (“The doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to prevent disciplinary action unless the respondent has been prejudiced in his defense by the

1997Molero, supra. However, Official Revision Comment (b) to Article 3457 states: “Under the Louisiana legal system, there is no room for the common law doctrine of laches.” The only authorities the Comment cites for this proposition are two federal district court decisions from 1944.

1986The Court in Molero, supra, found that each case involving the applicability of laches rests upon its own particular set of circumstances and a delay of time alone will not suffice to invoke the doctrine of laches.

1991We are aware of Justice Dixon's disagreement with concept of laches in his concurrence in Osborne v. Stone, 472 So.2d 223 (La.App. 1st Cir.), vacated and remanded, 476 So.2d 809 (La. 1985), appeal after remand, 536 So.2d 473 , (La.

1989See State ex rel Guste v. Estate of Himbert, 327 So.2d 698 (1st Cir.1976) writ denied 330 So.2d 308 and 311 (La.1976); Osborne v. Stone, 472 So.2d 223 (1st Cir.1985) judgment vacated at 476 So.2d 809 (La. 1985).

1991We are aware of Justice Dixon's disagreement with concept of laches in his concurrence in Osborne v. Stone, 472 So.2d 223 (La.App. 1st Cir.), vacated and remanded, 476 So.2d 809 (La. 1985), appeal after remand, 536 So.2d 473 , (La.

1989See State ex rel Guste v. Estate of Himbert, 327 So.2d 698 (1st Cir.1976) writ denied 330 So.2d 308 and 311 (La.1976); Osborne v. Stone, 472 So.2d 223 (1st Cir.1985) judgment vacated at 476 So.2d 809 (La. 1985).

1982In Bradford v. City of Shreveport, 305 So.2d 487 (La.1974), the court said: "... an unreasonable delay by aggrieved public employees in asserting monetary claims against a public body may relieve that body of liability under the doctrine of laches.

1976Plaintiff relies on Bradford v. City of Shreveport, 305 So.2d 487 (La.1974) in urging that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of laches.

1969See Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238, 243 , 3 S.Ct. 184 , 27 L.Ed. 920 ." The United States Supreme Court has apparently not yet specifically ruled upon the precise issue here presented, declaring in McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Company, 1958, 357 U.S. 221, 224 , 78 S.Ct. 1201, 1203 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1272 , 1275: "In the view we take of this case it is unnecessary for us to decide the broad question of whether a state court is free to apply its own statutes of limitation to an admiralty right of action for which no special limitation is prescribed, or whether it is bound to determine the timelines

1969See Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238, 243 , 3 S.Ct. 184 , 27 L.Ed. 920 ." The United States Supreme Court has apparently not yet specifically ruled upon the precise issue here presented, declaring in McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Company, 1958, 357 U.S. 221, 224 , 78 S.Ct. 1201, 1203 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1272 , 1275: "In the view we take of this case it is unnecessary for us to decide the broad question of whether a state court is free to apply its own statutes of limitation to an admiralty right of action for which no special limitation is prescribed, or whether it is bound to determine the timelines

1981Guidry v. Chevron Oil Co., 366 So.2d 979 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1978); Edwards v. Hartzman, 362 So.2d 1188 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1978); Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans v. Sanders, 264 So.2d 270 (La.

1978Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans v. Sanders, 264 So.2d 270 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972), writ ref., 262 La. 1157 , 266 So.2d 443 ; Lavergne v. Western Co. of North America, Inc., 346 So.2d 239 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1977).

1976Munson v. Martin, 249 La. 925 , 192 So.2d 126 (1966); Labarre v. Rateau, 210 La. 34 , 26 So.2d 279 (1946).

1976Munson v. Martin, 249 La. 925 , 192 So.2d 126 (1966); Labarre v. Rateau, 210 La. 34 , 26 So.2d 279 (1946).

1969App., 225 So.2d 114 , rendered this date by us, wherein Judge Landry, speaking for this panel discusses the comparative elements of state statutes of prescription or limitation and the admiralty doctrine of laches.

1969Co. v. Twenty Grand Towing Co., 225 So.2d 114 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1969) it was held that the contract sued upon was maritime in nature and therefore the controversy must be determined pursuant to the laws of admiralty; that the issue of prescription must be adjudicated in the light of the federal doctrine of laches.

2012Regarding Mr. Delesdernier’s claim of equitable estoppel/detrimental reliance, 7 “equity will not nullify or reduce an accumulated alimony ... award until 1 uthe judgment is altered or amended by a subsequent judgment or is terminated by operation of law.” Vallaire, 433 So.2d at 317 ; See also, Neiv v. New, 93-702 (La.

2006Id.

2006McCraine v. Hondo Boats, Inc., 399 So.2d 163, 165 (La.1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1105 , 102 S.Ct. 3483 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1366 (1982). [12] Although PKB denied receiving this letter, the trial court made the factual determination that PKB did in fact receive the letter.

2006McCraine v. Hondo Boats, Inc., 399 So.2d 163, 165 (La.1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1105 , 102 S.Ct. 3483 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1366 (1982). [12] Although PKB denied receiving this letter, the trial court made the factual determination that PKB did in fact receive the letter.