Eureka Homestead Soc. v. Clark

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Eureka Homestead Soc. v. Clark

83 So. 190, 145 La. 917, 1919 La. LEXIS 1806

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 3, 1919

DocketNo. 23586

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 83 So. 190 (Eureka Homestead Soc. v. Clark) 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

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

Pincite

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[1] Counsel for defendant, Clark, has filed a motion to have the writs of certiorari and review rescinded, because the plaintiff, relator herein, did not file a brief within the 20 days allowed.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The motion to have the writs rescinded is therefore overruled.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

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[1] Counsel for defendant, Clark, has filed a motion to have the writs of certiorari and review rescinded, because the plaintiff, relator herein, did not file a brief within the 20 days allowed.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The motion to have the writs rescinded is therefore overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 So. 190, 145 La. 917, 1919 La. LEXIS 1806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eureka-homestead-soc-v-clark-la-1919.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack