Clark v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Clark v. Taylor

697 So. 2d 240, 1997 La. LEXIS 2081, 1997 WL 380851

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 30, 1997

DocketNo. 97-CC-1059

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 697 So. 2d 240 (Clark v. Taylor) 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

Clark v. Taylor, 697 So. 2d 240, 1997 La. LEXIS 2081, 1997 WL 380851 (La. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*

Granted. The trial judge was incorrect in ruling that he was divested of jurisdiction to try the issue of quantum while the judgment on liability in the bifurcated trial was on appeal. Pursuant to La.Code CivJProc. art. 1915B, the trial court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining issues in the case while the appeal of the judgment on liability is pending. See also La.Civ.Proc. art. 2088. Nevertheless, the trial judge has the discretion not to proceed with the issue of damages pending the appeal. It is therefore appropriate to vacate the ruling and to remand the case to the trial judge for a discretionary determination of whether to proceed.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is vacated and set aside, and the ease is remanded to the trial court to determine, in its discretion, whether a stay of the damages phase is warranted under the facts of this case.

Marcus, J., not on panel.

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

PER CURIAM.

*

Granted. The trial judge was incorrect in ruling that he was divested of jurisdiction to try the issue of quantum while the judgment on liability in the bifurcated trial was on appeal. Pursuant to La.Code CivJProc. art. 1915B, the trial court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining issues in the case while the appeal of the judgment on liability is pending. See also La.Civ.Proc. art. 2088. Nevertheless, the trial judge has the discretion not to proceed with the issue of damages pending the appeal. It is therefore appropriate to vacate the ruling and to remand the case to the trial judge for a discretionary determination of whether to proceed.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is vacated and set aside, and the ease is remanded to the trial court to determine, in its discretion, whether a stay of the damages phase is warranted under the facts of this case.

Marcus, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 So. 2d 240, 1997 La. LEXIS 2081, 1997 WL 380851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-taylor-la-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack