Finn v. Eoff

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Finn v. Eoff

409 So. 2d 415, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 6778

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Finn v. Eoff. Read the opinion of the Court — 368 So. 2d 199 →

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided January 13, 1982·No. No. 14617·Published

Opinion

PONDER, Judge.

This appeal was fixed for argument and all attorneys of record were notified. At the time scheduled for argument, the appellant was not present or represented, nor had any brief been filed on behalf of appellant, nor had any motion been filed for continuance.

On authority of Rule VII, Section 5(b), this court, ex proprio motu, considers said appeal as abandoned; therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be dismissed with prejudice.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

PONDER, Judge.

This appeal was fixed for argument and all attorneys of record were notified. At the time scheduled for argument, the appellant was not present or represented, nor had any brief been filed on behalf of appellant, nor had any motion been filed for continuance.

On authority of Rule VII, Section 5(b), this court, ex proprio motu, considers said appeal as abandoned; therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be dismissed with prejudice.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Finn v. Eoff, 409 So. 2d 415, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 6778 (La. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

409 So. 2d 415 (Finn v. Eoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.