Cole v. Belknap, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Cole v. Belknap, Inc.

495 So. 2d 434, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7849

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 10, 1986

DocketNo. 86-829

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 495 So. 2d 434 (Cole v. Belknap, Inc.) 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

Cole v. Belknap, Inc., 495 So. 2d 434, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7849 (La. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

YELVERTON, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

The defendants-appellees move to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant, Jay M. Cole, on the grounds that the appellant has appealed the denial of a motion for a new trial, a non-appealable interlocutory judgment.

A final judgment was rendered and signed on February 14,1986 in favor of the plaintiff. On February 21, 1986, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and said motion was denied in open court on May 30, 1986, with the order being signed on June 5, 1986. The plaintiff then motioned the trial court for, and obtained an order granting plaintiff a devolutive appeal. This order was signed on July 10,1986, and states that the devolutive appeal is from the judgment rendered in open court on May 30, 1986 and signed on June 5, 1986. Movers subsequently filed Motions to Dismiss.

It is well settled that the denial of a motion for a new trial can be appealed only upon a showing of irreparable harm. Dural v. City of Morgan City, 449 So.2d 1047 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2083. However, it is evident that the appellant has appealed the final judgment signed on February 14, 1986, as the appellant’s brief only addresses issues concerning the mer[435]*435its of the final judgment. The jurisprudence is well settled that where a motion for appeal refers by date to the judgment denying a motion for new trial, but the circumstances indicate that the appellant actually intended to appeal from the final judgment on the merits, the appeal should be maintained as being taken from the judgment on the merits. Dural, supra at 1048 and cases cited therein. The circumstances in the case sub judice indicate the appeal is from the final judgment of February 14, 1986.

Accordingly, the Motions to Dismiss are denied and appellant’s appeal maintained.

MOTION DENIED.

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

YELVERTON, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

The defendants-appellees move to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant, Jay M. Cole, on the grounds that the appellant has appealed the denial of a motion for a new trial, a non-appealable interlocutory judgment.

A final judgment was rendered and signed on February 14,1986 in favor of the plaintiff. On February 21, 1986, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and said motion was denied in open court on May 30, 1986, with the order being signed on June 5, 1986. The plaintiff then motioned the trial court for, and obtained an order granting plaintiff a devolutive appeal. This order was signed on July 10,1986, and states that the devolutive appeal is from the judgment rendered in open court on May 30, 1986 and signed on June 5, 1986. Movers subsequently filed Motions to Dismiss.

It is well settled that the denial of a motion for a new trial can be appealed only upon a showing of irreparable harm. Dural v. City of Morgan City, 449 So.2d 1047 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2083. However, it is evident that the appellant has appealed the final judgment signed on February 14, 1986, as the appellant’s brief only addresses issues concerning the mer[435]*435its of the final judgment. The jurisprudence is well settled that where a motion for appeal refers by date to the judgment denying a motion for new trial, but the circumstances indicate that the appellant actually intended to appeal from the final judgment on the merits, the appeal should be maintained as being taken from the judgment on the merits. Dural, supra at 1048 and cases cited therein. The circumstances in the case sub judice indicate the appeal is from the final judgment of February 14, 1986.

Accordingly, the Motions to Dismiss are denied and appellant’s appeal maintained.

MOTION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

495 So. 2d 434, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-belknap-inc-lactapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack