945 So. 2d 246 - Dark v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An interruption of prescription resulting from the filing of a suit in a competent court and in the proper venue or from service of process within the prescriptive period continues as long as the suit is pending. Interruption is considered never to have occurred if the plaintiff abandons, voluntarily dismisses the action at any time either before the defendant has made any appearance of record or thereafter, or fails to prosecute the suit at the trial. [Emphasis added.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 21 So. 3d 992 - Williams v. Shaw Group, Inc. · 973 So. 2d 154 - Boyd v. Farmers Ins. Exchange

2. “Now under the amended article, any dismissal without prejudice, "either before the defendant has made an appearance of record or thereafter," may be considered a voluntary dismissal for purposes of Article 3463 so as to negate the interruption of prescription that otherwise occurs during the pendency of the action. In contrast to the setting in Hebert v. Cournoyer , the voluntariness of a plaintiff's action resulting in dismissal of the suit with prejudice (the present setting) is never a vital or relevant measure concerning prescription between the parties to the suit as clearly shown by Article 1673 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That article provides that dismissal with prejudice has the effect of a final judgment and bars another suit between the parties on the same cause of action. Thus, as recognized in revision comment (b) to Civil Code Article 3463, "if the suit is dismissed with prejudice, the interruption of prescription is immaterial because of res judicata." That observation is correct as between the parties to the suit. Nevertheless, prescription and its interruption remain material under the general principle of Article 3463 regarding a second suit against a different solidary obligor, but likewise the voluntariness of the prior dismissal with prejudice has no meaningful application to such dismissal. Unlike Hebert v. Cournoyer , another Hebert case decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed a prescription claim in a dismissal setting identical to the cas”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 973 So. 2d 154 - Boyd v. Farmers Ins. Exchange

3. “Actions for the recovery of damages sustained in motor vehicle accidents brought pursuant to uninsured motorist provisions in motor vehicle insurance policies are prescribed by two years reckoning from the date of the accident in which the damage was sustained.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 973 So. 2d 154 - Boyd v. Farmers Ins. Exchange