Crosby v. Crosby

442 So. 2d 1248, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9938

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided December 8, 1983·No. No. 82-CA-205·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[1249]*1249ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Our original opinion is reported at 434 So.2d 162. Subsequently, we granted a rehearing and heard oral arguments.

While the merits of the rehearing were under advisement, the following joint motion was filed by the parties:

“It is stipulated by and between the plaintiff and defendant that this suit has been compromised and settled and the parties move it be dismissed with prejudice, each party to pay its own respective costs.”

Accordingly, a ruling on the rehearing is moot and will not be forthcoming.

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

[1249]*1249ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Our original opinion is reported at 434 So.2d 162. Subsequently, we granted a rehearing and heard oral arguments.

While the merits of the rehearing were under advisement, the following joint motion was filed by the parties:

“It is stipulated by and between the plaintiff and defendant that this suit has been compromised and settled and the parties move it be dismissed with prejudice, each party to pay its own respective costs.”

Accordingly, a ruling on the rehearing is moot and will not be forthcoming.

Crosby v. Crosby, 442 So. 2d 1248, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9938 (La. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

442 So. 2d 1248 (Crosby v. Crosby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Bishop v. Shelter Ins. Co.

461 So. 2d 1170 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1984)

Opinion

Related