Brazan v. Brazan

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Brazan v. Brazan

653 So. 2d 581, 1995 La. LEXIS 1148, 1995 WL 253034

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 28, 1995

DocketNo. 95-OC-0593

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 653 So. 2d 581 (Brazan v. Brazan) 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

Brazan v. Brazan, 653 So. 2d 581, 1995 La. LEXIS 1148, 1995 WL 253034 (La. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Brazan, Deborah; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA94 1797; Parish of East Baton Rouge, Family Court of East Baton Rouge, Div. “A”, No. 104,730.

Granted; appeal dismissed. A subsequent substantive amendment to a final judgment made with the consent of both parties and signed prior to the lapse of the delay provided for taking an appeal may be considered to have the effect of creating a new final judgment from which the delay period for taking an appeal commences to run anew. Villaume v. Villaume, 363 So.2d 448 (La.1978). In this case, however, the Second Amended Judgment, which was entered with the consent of both parties but did not make any substantive changes, was not signed until after the appeal delays had run for first Amended Judgment.

[582]*582CALOGERO, C.J., would grant and docket. LEMMON, J., not on panel.

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

In re Brazan, Deborah; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA94 1797; Parish of East Baton Rouge, Family Court of East Baton Rouge, Div. “A”, No. 104,730.

Granted; appeal dismissed. A subsequent substantive amendment to a final judgment made with the consent of both parties and signed prior to the lapse of the delay provided for taking an appeal may be considered to have the effect of creating a new final judgment from which the delay period for taking an appeal commences to run anew. Villaume v. Villaume, 363 So.2d 448 (La.1978). In this case, however, the Second Amended Judgment, which was entered with the consent of both parties but did not make any substantive changes, was not signed until after the appeal delays had run for first Amended Judgment.

[582]*582CALOGERO, C.J., would grant and docket. LEMMON, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 So. 2d 581, 1995 La. LEXIS 1148, 1995 WL 253034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brazan-v-brazan-la-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack