Carter v. Coker

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Carter v. Coker

169 So. 2d 604, 1964 La. App. LEXIS 2127

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 1, 1964

DocketNo. 10287

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 So. 2d 604 (Carter v. Coker) 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

Carter v. Coker, 169 So. 2d 604, 1964 La. App. LEXIS 2127 (La. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

AYRES, Judge.

Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment decreeing their action to have been abandoned by their inaction for a period of time in excess of five years, as prescribed by LSA-C.C.P. Art. 561. They, however, did not timely appear nor file brief as required by the Rules of Court.

Under Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule VII, Section 5(b), 8 LSA-R.S., the court may, ex proprio rnotu, “Consider abandoned and dismiss the appeal in any case in which the appellant has neither appeared nor filed brief prior to the date fixed for submission of the case * * This rule has been uniformly adhered to.

The appeal is therefore presumed to have been abandoned. It will, accordingly, be dismissed at plaintiffs-appellants’ cost — - and it is so ordered.

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

AYRES, Judge.

Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment decreeing their action to have been abandoned by their inaction for a period of time in excess of five years, as prescribed by LSA-C.C.P. Art. 561. They, however, did not timely appear nor file brief as required by the Rules of Court.

Under Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule VII, Section 5(b), 8 LSA-R.S., the court may, ex proprio rnotu, “Consider abandoned and dismiss the appeal in any case in which the appellant has neither appeared nor filed brief prior to the date fixed for submission of the case * * This rule has been uniformly adhered to.

The appeal is therefore presumed to have been abandoned. It will, accordingly, be dismissed at plaintiffs-appellants’ cost — - and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 So. 2d 604, 1964 La. App. LEXIS 2127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-coker-lactapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack