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.
27 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 3 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 sentences2021The second exception, “a defense-oriented exception, based on acknowledgment[,] … applies when the defendant waives his right to assert abandonment by taking actions inconsistent with an intent to treat the case as abandoned.” Id. 2015The latter change was construed by Melancon “as codifying the defense-oriented waiver exception as a step in the defense.” Clark, 785 So.2d at 788 . | 3 | 21 |
Melancon v. Continental Casualty Companygreen2 sentences2006Melancon v. Continental Casualty Co., 307 So.2d 308, 312 (La.1975). 2001Melancon v. Continental Casualty Co., 307 So.2d 308, 312 (La.1975). | 2 | 2 |
Janice Dickerson, Individually and as Primary Owner of JMD Services, Inc. v. SNF Holding Companygreen1 sentence2024It then cited two jurisprudential exceptions to the abandonment rule set forth in Clark: (1) the plaintiff-oriented exception, based on the doctrine of contra non valentum, that applies when the failure to prosecute is caused by circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control; and (2) a defense-oriented exception, based on acknowledgement, that applies when a defendant waives the right to assert abandonment by taking actions inconsistent with an intent to treat the case as abandoned.8 Id., 23-0160, p. 3, 378 So. 3d at 806. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
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 |
Hutchison v. Seariver Maritime, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Tammany, 17-0153, p. 5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/25/17), 233 So. 3d 58 , 63 ( citing Hutchison, 09-0410, p. 6, 22 So. 3d at 994 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Food Perfect, Inc. v. United Fire & Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence2017Co., 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 | 2017–2017 |
Lewis v. Jones
neutral
1 sentence2017Clark, 785 So.2d at 784-85 ; Lewis, 193 So.3d at 551 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.