Doyle v. Sanders

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Doyle v. Sanders

798 So. 2d 953, 2001 La. LEXIS 2943, 2001 WL 1219161

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 5, 2001

DocketNo. 2001-CC-1776

StatusPublished

This text of 798 So. 2d 953 (Doyle v. Sanders) 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

Doyle v. Sanders, 798 So. 2d 953, 2001 La. LEXIS 2943, 2001 WL 1219161 (La. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Doyle, Clarence Bronson; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 91-19593; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2001-C-0794.

Granted. Although the parties agreed to the appointment of the special master as required by La. R.S. 13:4165, they did so with the understanding that the master’s duties would be limited “to review records relating to Mr. Doyle’s business and financial condition, and make recommendations to the Court.” By expanding the special master’s duties after the parties consented to his appointment, the trial court went beyond the scope of the parties’ consent. Accordingly, the trial court’s subsequent order “clarifying” the duties of the special master is vacated and set aside. The mas[954]*954ter’s role is limited to those duties set forth in the trial court’s original order, unless the parties agree otherwise.

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

In re Doyle, Clarence Bronson; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 91-19593; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2001-C-0794.

Granted. Although the parties agreed to the appointment of the special master as required by La. R.S. 13:4165, they did so with the understanding that the master’s duties would be limited “to review records relating to Mr. Doyle’s business and financial condition, and make recommendations to the Court.” By expanding the special master’s duties after the parties consented to his appointment, the trial court went beyond the scope of the parties’ consent. Accordingly, the trial court’s subsequent order “clarifying” the duties of the special master is vacated and set aside. The mas[954]*954ter’s role is limited to those duties set forth in the trial court’s original order, unless the parties agree otherwise.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

798 So. 2d 953, 2001 La. LEXIS 2943, 2001 WL 1219161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-sanders-la-2001.