Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education

123 So. 664, 168 La. 1030
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJuly 8, 1929
DocketNo. 29579.
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 123 So. 664 (Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education) 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
Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 123 So. 664, 168 La. 1030 (La. 1929).

Opinions

ST. PAUL, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment recalling a rule nisi and rejecting plaintiffs’ demand for an injunction. Defendants move to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the issues have already been finally decided against plaintiff, to wit, when this court denied plaintiffs’ application for a mandamus to compel the trial judge to issue the injunction prayed for. See our No. 29557. •

• The motion to dismiss must be denied. It has been held that the action of this court ’ upon an application for a mandamus, under the supervisory jurisdiction, to compel a trial judge to issue an injunction, is not res judicata between the parties in an appeal taken from the judgment refusing said injunction; and that such action by this court was no ground for dismissal of said appeal. Soniat v. White, 155 La. 290, 99 So. 223.

Moreover, it is clear that a motion to dismiss based on such grounds amounts to this: That said appeal is without merit. But even if an appeal be purely frivolous, that is no ground for dismissing it. “The remedy for an alleged frivolous appeal is, therefore, not the dismissal of the appeal, but the affirmance of the judgment appealed from when the appeal is heard in due course and actually found to*be without merit.” Succession of Damico, 161 Da. 725, 109 So. 402. And “this is so, because to determine whether the appeal is frivolous requires an examination into, and a decision on, the merits of the appeal.” Succession of Pavelka, 161 La. 728, 109 So. 403, and authorities. Cf. Twomey v. Papalia, 142 La. 624, 77 So. 479.

The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

LAND, J., concurs in decree.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer
932 P.2d 1145 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1997)
Paster v. Tussey
512 S.W.2d 97 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1974)
Epeldi v. Engelking
488 P.2d 860 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1971)
Seegers v. Parker
241 So. 2d 213 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1970)
Squires v. Inhabitants of City of Augusta
153 A.2d 80 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1959)
Diecidue v. Kilpatrick
86 So. 2d 757 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1956)
Weeks v. Consolidated Underwriters
73 So. 2d 479 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1954)
Wilson v. Wilson
50 So. 2d 202 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1950)
Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing
330 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1947)
Bowker v. Baker
167 P.2d 256 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Twp.
44 A.2d 333 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1945)
Chance v. Mississippi State Textbook Rating & Purchasing Board
200 So. 706 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1941)
Judd v. Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 2
15 N.E.2d 576 (New York Court of Appeals, 1938)
Board of Education v. Wheat
199 A. 628 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1938)
Nicholas v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
152 So. 779 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1934)
Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education
281 U.S. 370 (Supreme Court, 1930)
Louque v. Hercules Oil Co.
127 So. 866 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 So. 664, 168 La. 1030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-louisiana-state-board-of-education-la-1929.