Eureka Homestead Soc. v. Clark

83 So. 190, 145 La. 917, 1919 La. LEXIS 1806
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided November 3, 1919·No. No. 23586·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinions

On Motion to Rescind Writ.

O’NIELL, J.

[1] Counsel for defendant, Clark, has filed a motion to have the writs of certiorari and review rescinded, because the plaintiff, relator herein, did not file a brief within the 20 days allowed. There is no law nor rule of court imposing that penalty for a failure to file a brief in support of an application for a writ of review, under article 101 of the Constitution. The delay of 20 days allowed for the filing of briefs, which we invariably grant when we issue a writ of review to the Court of Appeal, is a matter of grace, not a mandate. The only unfortunate consequence that may result from an attorney’s negligence in that respect is that his client and we are thereby deprived of the benefit of the brief, in our effort to decide the case right.

The motion to have the writs rescinded is therefore overruled.

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

Eureka Homestead Soc. v. Clark, 83 So. 190, 145 La. 917, 1919 La. LEXIS 1806 (La. 1919).

83 So. 190 (Eureka Homestead Soc. v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hernandez v. King
411 So. 2d 758 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1982)
Allen v. Allen
182 P.2d 551 (California Supreme Court, 1947)
Morris Plan Bank of Georgia v. Hadsall
41 S.E.2d 881 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Snapp v. Scott
1946 OK 114 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1946)