D'Amico, Curet & Dampf v. Jumonville

Supreme Court of Louisiana

D'Amico, Curet & Dampf v. Jumonville

458 So. 2d 903

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided November 16, 1984·No. No. 84-CC-1777·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The court of appeal erred in refusing to consider relator’s application for rehearing. Uniform Rule 2-18.7 applies only when application for supervisory writs either has been denied or has been granted for subsequent disposition after the return date fixed for submission of the case.

[904]*904In the present ease, the court granted the application as part of a peremptory-reversal. Therefore, Rule 2-18.7 does not apply, and relator is entitled to apply for a rehearing.

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of relator’s application for rehearing.

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

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The court of appeal erred in refusing to consider relator’s application for rehearing. Uniform Rule 2-18.7 applies only when application for supervisory writs either has been denied or has been granted for subsequent disposition after the return date fixed for submission of the case.

[904]*904In the present ease, the court granted the application as part of a peremptory-reversal. Therefore, Rule 2-18.7 does not apply, and relator is entitled to apply for a rehearing.

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of relator’s application for rehearing.

D'Amico, Curet & Dampf v. Jumonville, 458 So. 2d 903 (La. 1984).

Pincite

458 So. 2d 903 (D'Amico, Curet & Dampf v. Jumonville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related