Hainkel v. Henry

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Hainkel v. Henry

312 So. 2d 867, 1975 La. LEXIS 4513

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 9, 1975

DocketNo. 56278

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 312 So. 2d 867 (Hainkel v. Henry) 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

Hainkel v. Henry, 312 So. 2d 867, 1975 La. LEXIS 4513 (La. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In re: plaintiffs applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Melvin A. Shortess, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 19th day of May, 1975, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the 19th day of May, 1975, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

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

In re: plaintiffs applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Melvin A. Shortess, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 19th day of May, 1975, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the 19th day of May, 1975, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 So. 2d 867, 1975 La. LEXIS 4513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hainkel-v-henry-la-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack