Art. 1979.Summary Decision On Motion; Maximum Delays
Book II. Ordinary Proceedings · Title VI. Judgments · Chapter 4. Modification In Trial Court · Last amended 2013 · Last verified July 30, 2026
Full Text of Art. 1979
Amendment History
Amended by Acts 2013, No. 78, §1, eff. 8/1/2013.
Plain-English Summary
A motion for new trial is meant to resolve quickly. Article 1979 gives the court ten days from the time the motion is submitted for decision to rule on it, keeping a case from lingering indefinitely on a request that, by its nature, either reopens the litigation or lets the judgment become final.
That ten-day period is not absolute. The article allows the attorneys representing all parties to extend it, by written consent or a stipulation entered into the record, for a specified period. Because the extension requires agreement among every party's counsel, and must specify how long the extension runs, the flexibility exists without opening the door to indefinite delay by one side alone.
When the court grants the motion, Article 1979 imposes one more requirement: the order must specify each of the court's reasons for granting it. Spelling out the reasons serves the parties and any reviewing court alike, making clear exactly which ground, or grounds, the court relied on rather than leaving the basis for a new trial to guesswork.
Frequently Asked Questions
How quickly must a Louisiana court rule on a motion for new trial?
Within ten days from the time the motion is submitted for decision, under Article 1979, unless the parties' attorneys agree in writing or on the record to extend that period for a specified time.
Can the ten-day deadline for deciding a new trial motion be extended?
Yes, if the attorneys representing all parties consent in writing or stipulate on the record to a specified extension. The court cannot extend it on its own without that agreement.
Does the court have to explain why it granted a new trial?
Yes. Article 1979 requires the order granting a new trial to specify each of the court's reasons, rather than granting it without explanation.
Does Article 1979 require the court to explain a denial of a new trial the same way?
The article's reason-giving requirement applies specifically when the court grants the motion, not when it denies one.