Carmouche v. Fox

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Carmouche v. Fox

525 So. 2d 364, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 1235, 1988 WL 49333

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 20, 1988

DocketNo. W88-487

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 525 So. 2d 364 (Carmouche v. Fox) 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

Carmouche v. Fox, 525 So. 2d 364, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 1235, 1988 WL 49333 (La. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Writ denied. The judgment, rendered by the trial court on January 8, 1988 and signed on January 22, 1988, was clearly not a final judgment from which an appeal lies. By its very terms the judgment clearly reflects that the trial court reserved its ruling on the issue of attorney’s fees on the principal demand and also on the issue of what offset, if any, was due under the reconventional demand to the amount the trial court found due under the principal demand, and that the trial court specifically made the judgment unenforceable until the conclusion of the trial on all issues. In the interest of justice a trial court may withhold the signing of a final judgment on the issues first tried until a signing of a final judgment on the other issues remaining to be tried. See La.C.C.P. Art. 1038. We consider the trial judge’s signature on the judgment to be inadvertent as he obviously did not intend the judgment to be final which is clearly permissible under La.C.C.P. Art. 1038. Relator has made no showing of irreparable injury such as to warrant the exercise by this Court of supervisory jurisdiction over this judgment.

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

Writ denied. The judgment, rendered by the trial court on January 8, 1988 and signed on January 22, 1988, was clearly not a final judgment from which an appeal lies. By its very terms the judgment clearly reflects that the trial court reserved its ruling on the issue of attorney’s fees on the principal demand and also on the issue of what offset, if any, was due under the reconventional demand to the amount the trial court found due under the principal demand, and that the trial court specifically made the judgment unenforceable until the conclusion of the trial on all issues. In the interest of justice a trial court may withhold the signing of a final judgment on the issues first tried until a signing of a final judgment on the other issues remaining to be tried. See La.C.C.P. Art. 1038. We consider the trial judge’s signature on the judgment to be inadvertent as he obviously did not intend the judgment to be final which is clearly permissible under La.C.C.P. Art. 1038. Relator has made no showing of irreparable injury such as to warrant the exercise by this Court of supervisory jurisdiction over this judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 So. 2d 364, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 1235, 1988 WL 49333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carmouche-v-fox-lactapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack