Deris v. Lee

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Deris v. Lee

613 So. 2d 962, 1993 WL 43390

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 19, 1993

DocketNo. 93-C-0128

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 613 So. 2d 962 (Deris v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deris v. Lee, 613 So. 2d 962, 1993 WL 43390 (La. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The minute entries from plaintiff’s timely filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana show that although plaintiff filed a motion to remand on January 27, 1988, and the action was partially dismissed on that date, plaintiff’s federal action was not fully dismissed until March 30, 1988. Prescription was interrupted while the federal action was pending and since plaintiff’s action in state district court was filed on February 18, 1988, while the federal action was pending, the action was timely. LSA-C.C. Art. 3463. See Martin v. Franklin State Bank & Trust, 595 So.2d 371 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992) and Levy v. Stelly, 277 So.2d 194 (La.App. 4th Cir.1973). Therefore, the trial court’s judgment granting defendants’ exception of prescription, as affirmed by the court of appeal, is reversed, the exception is overruled, and the case is remanded to the. Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for further proceedings.

WATSON, J., not on panel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The minute entries from plaintiff’s timely filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana show that although plaintiff filed a motion to remand on January 27, 1988, and the action was partially dismissed on that date, plaintiff’s federal action was not fully dismissed until March 30, 1988. Prescription was interrupted while the federal action was pending and since plaintiff’s action in state district court was filed on February 18, 1988, while the federal action was pending, the action was timely. LSA-C.C. Art. 3463. See Martin v. Franklin State Bank & Trust, 595 So.2d 371 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992) and Levy v. Stelly, 277 So.2d 194 (La.App. 4th Cir.1973). Therefore, the trial court’s judgment granting defendants’ exception of prescription, as affirmed by the court of appeal, is reversed, the exception is overruled, and the case is remanded to the. Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for further proceedings.

WATSON, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

613 So. 2d 962, 1993 WL 43390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deris-v-lee-la-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack