Barnett v. Lee

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Barnett v. Lee

502 So. 2d 564, 1987 La. LEXIS 8648

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 20, 1987

DocketNo. 87-C-0138

StatusPublished

This text of 502 So. 2d 564 (Barnett 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

Barnett v. Lee, 502 So. 2d 564, 1987 La. LEXIS 8648 (La. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Lee, Shirley; Lee, Tang Ching; ABC Insurance Co.; Royal China Inc.; [565]*565DEF Insurance Co.; Royal Place Inc.; XYZ Insurance Co.; Applying for Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number 86-CA-264; Parish of Jefferson 24th Judicial District Court Div. “I” Number 300-955.

Prior report: 497 So.2d 1072 (La.App. 1986)

Writ granted. Judgments reversed. New trial ordered. Plaintiff/respondent’s judgment in the district court was effectively by default. Under the peculiar circumstances defendant/relator, who sought relief after submission of the case but before judgment was signed, should have been allowed to reopen the case for presentation of evidence or should have been granted a new trial after judgment in the. district court.

DIXON, C.J., and WATSON and COLE, JJ., dissent and would deny. DIXON, C.J., is of the opinion that the trial judge did not err, and that relator has never shown that he has any defense to plaintiffs claims.

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

In re Lee, Shirley; Lee, Tang Ching; ABC Insurance Co.; Royal China Inc.; [565]*565DEF Insurance Co.; Royal Place Inc.; XYZ Insurance Co.; Applying for Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number 86-CA-264; Parish of Jefferson 24th Judicial District Court Div. “I” Number 300-955.

Prior report: 497 So.2d 1072 (La.App. 1986)

Writ granted. Judgments reversed. New trial ordered. Plaintiff/respondent’s judgment in the district court was effectively by default. Under the peculiar circumstances defendant/relator, who sought relief after submission of the case but before judgment was signed, should have been allowed to reopen the case for presentation of evidence or should have been granted a new trial after judgment in the. district court.

DIXON, C.J., and WATSON and COLE, JJ., dissent and would deny. DIXON, C.J., is of the opinion that the trial judge did not err, and that relator has never shown that he has any defense to plaintiffs claims.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 564, 1987 La. LEXIS 8648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-lee-la-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack