City of New Orleans v. Kirzner

Louisiana Court of Appeal

City of New Orleans v. Kirzner

447 So. 2d 66, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8320

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 14, 1984

DocketNo. CA-1896

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 447 So. 2d 66 (City of New Orleans v. Kirzner) 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

City of New Orleans v. Kirzner, 447 So. 2d 66, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8320 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

REDMANN, Chief Judge.

We deny our own motion to dismiss this appeal from a judgment not signed until six days after the motion for appeal. (C.C.P. 1911 allows appeal only from a signed judgment.) The matter is controlled by In the Matter of Parker, 399 So.2d 607 (La.1981), reversing the First Circuit, 395 So.2d 373.

The First Circuit distinguishes Parker in Painter v. Continental Union Assur. Co., 407 So.2d 500 (La.App. 1 Cir.1981), and in Brown v. Brown, 421 So.2d 952 (La.App. 1 Cir.1982), on the basis that Parker contained written “reasons for judgment” that might have been interpreted as a judgment.

We disagree with that distinction because the Louisiana supreme court has often held that a judgment’s not being signed at the time the appeal is taken does not warrant dismissal of the appeal if, by the time the appeal is lodged, the signed judgment is present in the record. The most recent of these decisions is Palmer v. Wren, 361 So.2d 1206 (La.1978) (also reversing the First Circuit), declaring that “Nomey v. St. Department of Highway, La.App. [2 Cir.1976], 325 So.2d 732, ... has correctly decided this issue.” Seven earlier such decisions by the supreme court are listed in Richards v. Gettys, 329 So.2d 475 (La.App. 4 Cir.1976). For a fuller exposition see Reed v. Superior Motors, 415 So.2d 219 (La.App. 2 Cir.1982), which is consistent with this court’s and the supreme court’s earlier decisions and which, if Parker be distinguishable, we follow.

Motion denied.

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

REDMANN, Chief Judge.

We deny our own motion to dismiss this appeal from a judgment not signed until six days after the motion for appeal. (C.C.P. 1911 allows appeal only from a signed judgment.) The matter is controlled by In the Matter of Parker, 399 So.2d 607 (La.1981), reversing the First Circuit, 395 So.2d 373.

The First Circuit distinguishes Parker in Painter v. Continental Union Assur. Co., 407 So.2d 500 (La.App. 1 Cir.1981), and in Brown v. Brown, 421 So.2d 952 (La.App. 1 Cir.1982), on the basis that Parker contained written “reasons for judgment” that might have been interpreted as a judgment.

We disagree with that distinction because the Louisiana supreme court has often held that a judgment’s not being signed at the time the appeal is taken does not warrant dismissal of the appeal if, by the time the appeal is lodged, the signed judgment is present in the record. The most recent of these decisions is Palmer v. Wren, 361 So.2d 1206 (La.1978) (also reversing the First Circuit), declaring that “Nomey v. St. Department of Highway, La.App. [2 Cir.1976], 325 So.2d 732, ... has correctly decided this issue.” Seven earlier such decisions by the supreme court are listed in Richards v. Gettys, 329 So.2d 475 (La.App. 4 Cir.1976). For a fuller exposition see Reed v. Superior Motors, 415 So.2d 219 (La.App. 2 Cir.1982), which is consistent with this court’s and the supreme court’s earlier decisions and which, if Parker be distinguishable, we follow.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 So. 2d 66, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-orleans-v-kirzner-lactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack