Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
32 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2023 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.green2 sentences2017In Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 00-3010 (La. 5/15/01), 785 So.2d 779, 784-85 (footnote omitted), the supreme court stated: Only two categories of causes outside the record are permitted; namely, those causes falling within the two jurisprudential exceptions to the abandonment rule. 2013Co., 00-3010 (La.5/15/01), 785 So.2d 779 , we explained there are two jurisprudential exceptions to the abandonment rule. | 2 | 13 |
Food Perfect, Inc. v. United Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences2020See Food Perfect, 106 So. 3d at 108 , wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff -oriented exception to the abandonment rule was inapplicable, where the plaintiff did not allege any circumstances beyond his control, such as natural disasters, prevented him from taking any steps to prosecute this action. 2017Co., 12-2492, p. 1 (La. 1/18/13), 106 So.3d 107, 108 . |sThe jurisprudence has recognized only two exceptions—both based on prescription principles—to the abandonment rule; 6 those exceptions are as follows: (1) a plaintiff-oriented exception based on contra non valentem, that applies when failure to prosecute is caused by circumstances beyond the plaintiffs control [the “Plaintiff-Oriented Exception”]; and (2) a defense-oriented exception based on acknowledgment, that applies when the defendant waives his right to assert abandonment by taking actions inconsistent with an intent to treat the c | 1 | 2 |
London Livery, Ltd. v. Brinksgreen2 sentences2023See Id., 2008-0230, pp. 4-5, 3 So.3d at 15 - 16. 2023C.C.P. art. 561 or its jurisprudential exception known as the “Defendant Exception.” A motion to set a rule to show cause regarding a motion to dismiss a matter as abandoned is not a “step” by the defendant to “facilitate judicial resolution of the dispute on the merits of the case.” See London Livery Ltd, 2008-0230, pp. 4-5, 3 So.3d at 15-16 . (for the proposition that a motion for an extension of time in which to plead failed to serve as a waiver to a defendants rights to an abandonment claim). | 1 | 1 |
Courtney v. Hendersongreen1 sentence2020See also Courtney, 602 So. 2d at 97 , holding that the plaintiff -oriented exception to the rule of abandonment did not apply where the plaintiff's attorney died ten days before the end of the abandonment period. | 1 | 1 |
Richard v. Broussardgreen2 sentences2017C.C.P. art. 4731 B, 7 which provides, in part, that “[a]fter the required notice has been given, the lessor or owner, or agent thereof, may lawfully take possession of the premises without further judicial process, upon a reasonable belief that the lessee or occupant has abandoned the premises.” 8 Based on the abandonment exception, the Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized a lessor’s limited right to engage in “self-help” in the following scenario — “when the lessee breaches the lease by abandoning the premises, the |7lessor has the right to take possession of the premises as agent for the l 2017C.C.P. art. 4731 B, 7 which provides, in part, that “[a]fter the required notice has been given, the lessor or owner, or agent thereof, may lawfully take possession of the premises without further judicial process, upon a reasonable belief that the lessee or occupant has abandoned the premises.” 8 Based on the abandonment exception, the Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized a lessor’s limited right to engage in “self-help” in the following scenario — “when the lessee breaches the lease by abandoning the premises, the |7lessor has the right to take possession of the premises as agent for the l | 1 | 1 |
Duhon v. Brileygreen2 sentences2017When the abandonment exception applies, the lessor is exempt “from liability for failing to comply with the eviction procedure before taking possession if the lessee unjustifiably abandons the leased premises.” Duhon v. Briley, 12-1137, 12-1138, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/23/13), 117 So.3d 253, 258 (citing Girgis v. Macaluso Realty Co., 00-753, p, 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/31/01), 778 So.2d 1210, 1212-13 ); see also Pelleteri v. Caspian Group Inc., 02-2141, 02-2142, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1230, 1237 . 2017When the abandonment exception applies, the lessor is exempt “from liability for failing to comply with the eviction procedure before taking possession if the lessee unjustifiably abandons the leased premises.” Duhon v. Briley, 12-1137, 12-1138, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/23/13), 117 So.3d 253, 258 (citing Girgis v. Macaluso Realty Co., 00-753, p, 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/31/01), 778 So.2d 1210, 1212-13 ); see also Pelleteri v. Caspian Group Inc., 02-2141, 02-2142, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1230, 1237 . | 1 | 1 |
Pelleteri v. Caspian Group Inc.green2 sentences2017When the abandonment exception applies, the lessor is exempt “from liability for failing to comply with the eviction procedure before taking possession if the lessee unjustifiably abandons the leased premises.” Duhon v. Briley, 12-1137, 12-1138, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/23/13), 117 So.3d 253, 258 (citing Girgis v. Macaluso Realty Co., 00-753, p, 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/31/01), 778 So.2d 1210, 1212-13 ); see also Pelleteri v. Caspian Group Inc., 02-2141, 02-2142, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1230, 1237 . 2017When the abandonment exception applies, the lessor is exempt “from liability for failing to comply with the eviction procedure before taking possession if the lessee unjustifiably abandons the leased premises.” Duhon v. Briley, 12-1137, 12-1138, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/23/13), 117 So.3d 253, 258 (citing Girgis v. Macaluso Realty Co., 00-753, p, 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/31/01), 778 So.2d 1210, 1212-13 ); see also Pelleteri v. Caspian Group Inc., 02-2141, 02-2142, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1230, 1237 . | 1 | 1 |
Ledet v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newarkgreen1 sentence2014In Ledet v. Firemen’s Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey, 327 So.2d 645, 646 (La.App. 4 Cir.), unit denied, 330 So.2d 914 (La.1976), the fourth circuit rejected a plaintiffs argument that error by the clerk of court in misfiling a motion to fix for trial was a circumstance beyond the plaintiffs control, stating: Admittedly plaintiffs counsel, for a reasonable period of time, would have no reason to suspect his signed order placing the case on the proper call docket for fixing and trial had been misfiled; however, we do think his inquiry and attention would have been excited before five years[ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development v. Oilfield Heavy Haulers, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2023Id. at 985 . 2023As stated by the Supreme Court in Louisiana De ' t of Transp. and Development, 79 So. 3d at 985 , requiring any action taken by a party that is alleged to be a step in the prosecution or defense of the suit must appear in the court record is mistaken to the extent it precludes actions made by defendants and known to all parties from constituting a step in the prosecution or defense of an action sufficient to interrupt abandonment." Accordingly, we find that this case was not abandoned because the facts appear to show a jurisprudential exception to the abandonment rule as mandated by La. | 3 | 2015–2023 |
Bibeau v. Forest Manor Nursing Home
neutral
2 sentences2012The abandonment rule impli cates two competing policies: “The prevention of protracted litigation, filed for purposes of harassment or without serious intent to hasten the claim to judgment, is balanced against the maintenance of an action whenever possible so as to afford an aggrieved party his day in court.” Bibeau v. Forest Manor Nursing Home, 05-0181, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/18/05), 917 So.2d 1123, 1125 . 2008As we stated in Bibeau v. Forest Manor Nursing Home, XXXX-XXXX, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/18/05), 917 So.2d 1123, 1125 , "the abandonment rule implicates two competing policies. | 2 | 2008–2012 |
Jackson v. BASF Corp.
neutral
2 sentences2011Jackson v. BASF Corporation, 2004-2777 at p. 5, 927 So.2d at 416 . . 2009Jackson v. BASF Corporation, 2004-2777 at p. 5, 927 So.2d at 416 . | 2 | 2009–2011 |
Pichon v. Reynolds
neutral
2 sentences2005As we stated in Pichon v. Reynolds, 02-0044, 02-0045, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/31/02), 828 So.2d 599, 600 , writ denied 02-2856 (La.2/25/03), 841 So.2d 756 , the abandonment rule implicates two competing policies. 2005As we stated in Pichon v. Reynolds, 02-0044, 02-0045 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/31/02) , 828 So.2d 599, 600 , writ denied 2002-2856 (La.2/25/03), 841 So.2d 756 , the abandonment rule implicates two competing policies. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Pichon v. Reynolds
neutral
2 sentences2005As we stated in Pichon v. Reynolds, 02-0044, 02-0045, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/31/02), 828 So.2d 599, 600 , writ denied 02-2856 (La.2/25/03), 841 So.2d 756 , the abandonment rule implicates two competing policies. 2005As we stated in Pichon v. Reynolds, 02-0044, 02-0045 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/31/02) , 828 So.2d 599, 600 , writ denied 2002-2856 (La.2/25/03), 841 So.2d 756 , the abandonment rule implicates two competing policies. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Brennan v. Shell Offshore, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2020App. 4th Cir. 1992), recognizing that the plaintiff -oriented exception to the abandonment rule is " designed to protect parties who are physically incapable of taking the requisite steps." Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Girgis v. Macaluso Realty Co.
green
2 sentences2017When the abandonment exception applies, the lessor is exempt “from liability for failing to comply with the eviction procedure before taking possession if the lessee unjustifiably abandons the leased premises.” Duhon v. Briley, 12-1137, 12-1138, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/23/13), 117 So.3d 253, 258 (citing Girgis v. Macaluso Realty Co., 00-753, p, 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/31/01), 778 So.2d 1210, 1212-13 ); see also Pelleteri v. Caspian Group Inc., 02-2141, 02-2142, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1230, 1237 . 2017When the abandonment exception applies, the lessor is exempt “from liability for failing to comply with the eviction procedure before taking possession if the lessee unjustifiably abandons the leased premises.” Duhon v. Briley, 12-1137, 12-1138, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/23/13), 117 So.3d 253, 258 (citing Girgis v. Macaluso Realty Co., 00-753, p, 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/31/01), 778 So.2d 1210, 1212-13 ); see also Pelleteri v. Caspian Group Inc., 02-2141, 02-2142, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1230, 1237 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lewis v. Jones
neutral
1 sentence2017Clark, 785 So.2d at 784-85 ; Lewis, 193 So.3d at 551 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Adams v. Adams
neutral
1 sentence2016Citing Chevron, the First Circuit in Adams v. Adams, 14-0387 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/11/15) , 166 So.3d 1066 , recently held that the defendant’s filing of an exception of no cause of action and a motion for new trial, prior to filing his ex parte motion for dismissal based on abandonment, constituted submission of the case for decision, thereby waiving his claim of abandonment. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Satterthwaite v. Byais
green
1 sentence2014See Clark, 785 So.2d at 785 ; Hutchison v. Seariver Maritime, Inc., 09-0410 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09) , 22 So.3d 989, 994 , writ denied, 09-2216 (La.12/18/09), 23 So.3d 946 ; Satterthwaite, 943 So.2d at 393 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hutchison v. Seariver Maritime, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014See Clark, 785 So.2d at 785 ; Hutchison v. Seariver Maritime, Inc., 09-0410 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09) , 22 So.3d 989, 994 , writ denied, 09-2216 (La.12/18/09), 23 So.3d 946 ; Satterthwaite, 943 So.2d at 393 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Campbell v. PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
green
1 sentence2014See Clark, 785 So.2d at 785 ; Hutchison v. Seariver Maritime, Inc., 09-0410 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09) , 22 So.3d 989, 994 , writ denied, 09-2216 (La.12/18/09), 23 So.3d 946 ; Satterthwaite, 943 So.2d at 393 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Lake, Inc. v. Louisiana Power & Light Company
green
1 sentence2014In Ledet v. Firemen’s Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey, 327 So.2d 645, 646 (La.App. 4 Cir.), unit denied, 330 So.2d 914 (La.1976), the fourth circuit rejected a plaintiffs argument that error by the clerk of court in misfiling a motion to fix for trial was a circumstance beyond the plaintiffs control, stating: Admittedly plaintiffs counsel, for a reasonable period of time, would have no reason to suspect his signed order placing the case on the proper call docket for fixing and trial had been misfiled; however, we do think his inquiry and attention would have been excited before five years[ | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Causey v. Caterpillar MacHinery Corp.
green
1 sentence2013Causey v. Caterpil lar Machinery Corp., 02-0746 (La.App. 4th Cir.06/26/02), 822 So.2d 188 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lion Investbanc Corp. v. River Products, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2010Lion InvestBanc Corp. v. River Products, Inc., 02-481 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/02) ; 831 So.2d 500 , 502 citing Clark, 00-3010, 785 So.2d at 784-785 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Escoffier v. City of New Orleans
green
1 sentence2008Escoffier v. City of New Orleans, 06-1005, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/11/07), 957 So.2d 216, 218 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
United States v. Daniel Thomas
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant
green
2 sentences1987Arlington Hotel Co. v. Font, 278 U.S. 439 , 49 S.Ct. 227 , 73 L.Ed. 447 (1929). 1987Arlington Hotel Co. v. Font, 278 U.S. 439 , 49 S.Ct. 227 , 73 L.Ed. 447 (1929). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Dugas v. Dugas
green
1 sentence1986Dugas v. Dugas, 424 So.2d 1189 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Marquette Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1966Defendant cites and relies on the case of Maryland Casualty Co. v. Marquette Casualty Co. (1962) La.App., 143 So.2d 249 , as controlling of the issue involved herein. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Fee v. Big Sand Iron Co.
green
1 sentence1931Ed. 901 , it was held: “Where the record shows defendant's denial of the jurisdiction and the grounds for.it, the denial need not be reiterated in the bill of exceptions to get it into the record so as to bring the question before the appellate court.” Plaintiffs’ counsel contend that the -question, -whether the filing of the motion' for-a new trial in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, Ohio, had the effect of an abandonment of the defendant’s exception to the jurisdiction of the court, must be determined by the law of the forum — the law of Ohio; and, in support of the argument.tha | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Clippinger v. Sturgeon
neutral
1 sentence1931Ed. 901 , it was held: “Where the record shows defendant's denial of the jurisdiction and the grounds for.it, the denial need not be reiterated in the bill of exceptions to get it into the record so as to bring the question before the appellate court.” Plaintiffs’ counsel contend that the -question, -whether the filing of the motion' for-a new trial in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, Ohio, had the effect of an abandonment of the defendant’s exception to the jurisdiction of the court, must be determined by the law of the forum — the law of Ohio; and, in support of the argument.tha | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| Bliss v. Smith neutral | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.