Dugas v. Audubon Insurance Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Dugas v. Audubon Insurance Co.

676 So. 2d 700, 96 La.App. 3 Cir. 377, 1996 La. App. LEXIS 1253, 1996 WL 293436

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 5, 1996

DocketNo. 96-377

StatusPublished

This text of 676 So. 2d 700 (Dugas v. Audubon Insurance Co.) 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

Dugas v. Audubon Insurance Co., 676 So. 2d 700, 96 La.App. 3 Cir. 377, 1996 La. App. LEXIS 1253, 1996 WL 293436 (La. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

| THIBODEAUX, Judge.

This court issued a rule to show cause to the plaintiffs-appellants, Barbara Dalcourt Dugas & Waldo Dugas, why the above captioned appeal should not be dismissed on the ground that the judgment appealed was a nonappealable interlocutory ruling. We hereby dismiss the appeal.

On July 27, 1994, the plaintiffs filed this damage suit against the defendants. The plaintiffs filed a motion to have case refixed as a jury trial on September 21, 1995. A hearing was held on the motion on September 21, 1995. On November 16, 1995, the trial court rendered judgment denying the motion to refix as a jury trial. Notice of judgment was mailed on November 28, 1995. Plaintiffs filed a petition for an appeal on December 13, 1995. The record was lodged with this court on March 27, 1996. On March 27, 1996, this court issued a rule to show cause why the above captioned appeal should not be dismissed as being an appeal from a |2nonappealable interlocutory ruling. The appellant did not respond to the rule to show cause.

In Bernard v. Allstate Insurance Company, 396 So.2d 548 (La.App. 3 Cir.1981), this court held that a judgment denying a jury trial was a non-appealable, interlocutory judgment, and that the better procedure for seeking review of an order denying a jury trial is by supervisory writ application since such review is more expeditious than an appeal. See also Edward J. Milligan, Jr., Ltd. v. Keele, 610 So.2d 1087 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

| THIBODEAUX, Judge.

This court issued a rule to show cause to the plaintiffs-appellants, Barbara Dalcourt Dugas & Waldo Dugas, why the above captioned appeal should not be dismissed on the ground that the judgment appealed was a nonappealable interlocutory ruling. We hereby dismiss the appeal.

On July 27, 1994, the plaintiffs filed this damage suit against the defendants. The plaintiffs filed a motion to have case refixed as a jury trial on September 21, 1995. A hearing was held on the motion on September 21, 1995. On November 16, 1995, the trial court rendered judgment denying the motion to refix as a jury trial. Notice of judgment was mailed on November 28, 1995. Plaintiffs filed a petition for an appeal on December 13, 1995. The record was lodged with this court on March 27, 1996. On March 27, 1996, this court issued a rule to show cause why the above captioned appeal should not be dismissed as being an appeal from a |2nonappealable interlocutory ruling. The appellant did not respond to the rule to show cause.

In Bernard v. Allstate Insurance Company, 396 So.2d 548 (La.App. 3 Cir.1981), this court held that a judgment denying a jury trial was a non-appealable, interlocutory judgment, and that the better procedure for seeking review of an order denying a jury trial is by supervisory writ application since such review is more expeditious than an appeal. See also Edward J. Milligan, Jr., Ltd. v. Keele, 610 So.2d 1087 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 So. 2d 700, 96 La.App. 3 Cir. 377, 1996 La. App. LEXIS 1253, 1996 WL 293436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dugas-v-audubon-insurance-co-lactapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack