Harris v. Hamilton

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Harris v. Hamilton

550 So. 2d 278, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1580, 1989 WL 105738

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 14, 1989

DocketNo. 89-CA-1007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 550 So. 2d 278 (Harris v. Hamilton) 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

Harris v. Hamilton, 550 So. 2d 278, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1580, 1989 WL 105738 (La. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

BECKER, Judge.

Ex proprio motu, we questioned jurisdiction over this appeal from the First City Court.

Judgment was rendered on March 28, 1989, and a mailing of notice was accomplished that day. The motion for appeal in the record is not dated. However, a letter from the attorney to the clerk enclosing the motion was dated April 17, 1989. The appeal was granted May 15, 1989. C.C.P. article 5002 states an appeal from a city or parish court must be taken within ten (10) days from the date of judgment, or from the service of motion. The record does not contain the date of service of judgment. Although we agree with the dissent in Points v. Laird, 460 So.2d 771 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984) that absent personal service or service by certified mail, the time limitation imposed by C.C.P. article 5002 is effectively eliminated, this is a matter to be addressed by the legislature.

The record fails to reveal when service of judgment was made. Therefore, we deny our motion.

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

BECKER, Judge.

Ex proprio motu, we questioned jurisdiction over this appeal from the First City Court.

Judgment was rendered on March 28, 1989, and a mailing of notice was accomplished that day. The motion for appeal in the record is not dated. However, a letter from the attorney to the clerk enclosing the motion was dated April 17, 1989. The appeal was granted May 15, 1989. C.C.P. article 5002 states an appeal from a city or parish court must be taken within ten (10) days from the date of judgment, or from the service of motion. The record does not contain the date of service of judgment. Although we agree with the dissent in Points v. Laird, 460 So.2d 771 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984) that absent personal service or service by certified mail, the time limitation imposed by C.C.P. article 5002 is effectively eliminated, this is a matter to be addressed by the legislature.

The record fails to reveal when service of judgment was made. Therefore, we deny our motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 So. 2d 278, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1580, 1989 WL 105738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-hamilton-lactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack