Hartzog v. Eubanks

202 So. 2d 656, 251 La. 45, 1967 La. LEXIS 2481

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hartzog v. Eubanks. Read the opinion of the Court — 251 La. 50 →

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided October 6, 1967·No. No. 48842·Published

Opinion

The application is denied. According to the facts of the case, as found to be by the Court of Appeal, the result reached by the court is correct.

HAMITER, J.,

is of the opinion that the writ should be issued to allow consideration of the application of the doctrine of last chance.

SANDERS, J.,

is of the opinion that a writ should be granted. He expresses no opinion at this time as to the result to be reached.

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

The application is denied. According to the facts of the case, as found to be by the Court of Appeal, the result reached by the court is correct.

HAMITER, J.,

is of the opinion that the writ should be issued to allow consideration of the application of the doctrine of last chance.

SANDERS, J.,

is of the opinion that a writ should be granted. He expresses no opinion at this time as to the result to be reached.

Hartzog v. Eubanks, 202 So. 2d 656, 251 La. 45, 1967 La. LEXIS 2481 (La. 1967).

Pincite

202 So. 2d 656 (Hartzog v. Eubanks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.