Guidry v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Guidry v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Co.

371 So. 2d 1301, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3504

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 23, 1979

DocketNo. 7136

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 371 So. 2d 1301 (Guidry v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction 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

Guidry v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Co., 371 So. 2d 1301, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3504 (La. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MOTION TO DISMISS

WATSON, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee has filed a motion entitled “Motion to Strike Acceptance of Appellant’s Brief, To Suppress Appellant’s Right to Orally Argue, And To Dismiss Appeal”, the thrust of which is that appellants’ brief does not comply with Rule 9, Section 3 of the Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal. (West’s Louisiana Rules of Court, 1979, p. 109 et seq.) Our examination of the brief in question indicates that while there is a failure to present a concise specification of errors and issues presented on appeal, the brief does identify in general argument the errors and the issues; and the brief otherwise complies with Rule 9, Section 3. Since we find a substantial compliance with the rule, we deny the motion filed by plaintiff, but counsel for appellants is instructed to adhere carefully to the provisions of the Uniform Rules in the future.

Likewise, we find no merit in the request for an extension of time in which to file appellee’s brief.

Motion Denied.

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

MOTION TO DISMISS

WATSON, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee has filed a motion entitled “Motion to Strike Acceptance of Appellant’s Brief, To Suppress Appellant’s Right to Orally Argue, And To Dismiss Appeal”, the thrust of which is that appellants’ brief does not comply with Rule 9, Section 3 of the Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal. (West’s Louisiana Rules of Court, 1979, p. 109 et seq.) Our examination of the brief in question indicates that while there is a failure to present a concise specification of errors and issues presented on appeal, the brief does identify in general argument the errors and the issues; and the brief otherwise complies with Rule 9, Section 3. Since we find a substantial compliance with the rule, we deny the motion filed by plaintiff, but counsel for appellants is instructed to adhere carefully to the provisions of the Uniform Rules in the future.

Likewise, we find no merit in the request for an extension of time in which to file appellee’s brief.

Motion Denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 So. 2d 1301, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guidry-v-ford-bacon-davis-construction-co-lactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack