Saucier v. Rego Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Saucier v. Rego Co.

508 So. 2d 1038, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9893

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 25, 1987

DocketNo. W87-637

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 508 So. 2d 1038 (Saucier v. Rego Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saucier v. Rego Co., 508 So. 2d 1038, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9893 (La. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY.

The trial court erred in overruling Rego Company’s exception of prescription. An amending petition naming a defendant after the one year prescription period has run does not timely interrupt prescription if all of the timely sued alleged solidary obli-gors are dismissed from the suit. Gauthier v. So. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 422 So.2d 627 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1982) writ denied 427 So.2d 869 (La.1983). Likewise, the filing of a petition with a fictitiously named defendant does not interrupt prescription as to a subsequently correctly named defendant after the prescription period has run. Templet v. Johns, 417 So.2d 433 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982) writ denied 420 So.2d 981 (La.1983). IT IS ORDERED that the trial court vacate its judgment signed on May 5, 1987 overruling Rego Company’s exception of prescription and denying Rego Company's motion for summary judgment, and grant Rego Company’s exception of prescription dismissing Rego Company from the plaintiff’s suit with prejudice.

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

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY.

The trial court erred in overruling Rego Company’s exception of prescription. An amending petition naming a defendant after the one year prescription period has run does not timely interrupt prescription if all of the timely sued alleged solidary obli-gors are dismissed from the suit. Gauthier v. So. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 422 So.2d 627 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1982) writ denied 427 So.2d 869 (La.1983). Likewise, the filing of a petition with a fictitiously named defendant does not interrupt prescription as to a subsequently correctly named defendant after the prescription period has run. Templet v. Johns, 417 So.2d 433 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982) writ denied 420 So.2d 981 (La.1983). IT IS ORDERED that the trial court vacate its judgment signed on May 5, 1987 overruling Rego Company’s exception of prescription and denying Rego Company's motion for summary judgment, and grant Rego Company’s exception of prescription dismissing Rego Company from the plaintiff’s suit with prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 1038, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saucier-v-rego-co-lactapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack