Johnson v. Bell

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided May 18, 2012

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 2012-05-18

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 2013

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“While dismissal is a draconian penalty which should only be applied in extreme cases, it does not appear that the district court abused its discretion in ordering dismissal under the facts of the present case. There is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that plaintiffs failure to comply with discovery was willful and warranted the harsh remedy imposed by the district court. [[Image here]]”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 114 So. 3d 1237 - Worley v. Worley

Relies on 635 So. 2d 199 - Horton v. McCary · In re Holmes

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2012-05-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1In re United States Fire Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 2006-2284; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1348.

¶2Writ Granted. While dismissal is a draconian penalty which should only be applied in extreme cases, Horton v. McCary, 93-2315, p. 10 (La.4/11/94), 635 So.2d 199, 203, it does not appear that the district court abused its discretion in ordering dismissal under the facts of the present case. There is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that plaintiffs failure to comply with discovery was willful and warranted the harsh remedy imposed by the district court. See Hutchinson v. Westport Ins. Corp., 04-1592 (La.11/8/04), 886 So.2d 438. The Judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and the district court order of dismissal is reinstated.