In re May

452 So. 2d 800, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9149
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 13, 1984
DocketNo. 15859-CAJ
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 452 So. 2d 800 (In re May) 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
In re May, 452 So. 2d 800, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9149 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Subsequent to our opinion herein, In Re May, 441 So.2d 500 (La.App. 2d Cir.1983), our Supreme Court, 449 So.2d 1028 (1984), granted writs and made the following pronouncement:

“Granted. Court of Appeal judgment set aside. Case remanded to Court of Appeal for reconsideration after receiving and reviewing transcript of trial court proceedings.”

In dealing with appellant’s Assignment of Error No. 1, we noted that a lack of a trial transcript precluded us from determining exactly what occurred during the course of the trial. Even though we cited LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2130,1 we apparently did not make it sufficiently clear that the proceedings were never “taken down in writing.” Thus, there is no transcript and one is not available because the proceedings were never recorded.

We are still of the view, as we espoused in the original opinion, that because the defendant did not object in the trial court to the failure to record the proceedings, he waived the right to complain of such an appeal.

Moreover, and just as importantly, the defendant did not indicate what he wished to prove by the subpoenas he contended were not issued, nor did he indicate how his case was prejudiced by the lack of the records which he sought. Furthermore, we accepted plaintiff’s contention arguendo that his cross-examination of his former wife on the details of their having lived together after the divorce was curtailed. We adhere to the opinion that since this evidence concerned events a number of years old that it was irrelevant. Therefore, the defendant did not show us in what manner he was prejudiced by a lack of a transcript and, under the circumstances of this case we are unable to conceive of any such circumstance.

Thus, in summary, because the proceedings are civil in nature, we believe that defendant’s lack of objection to the “taking down” of the proceedings operates as a waiver thereof. Furthermore, we are firmly of the view that even had those proceedings been taken down, they would not have assisted petitioner in the errors which he asserts before us. Having reconsidered the record and the law in light of the remand, we reinstate our original opinion.

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

Related

In re K.L.H.
771 So. 2d 706 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2000)
Tutorship of Shea
619 So. 2d 1236 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
Jgg v. Jlf
556 So. 2d 236 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)
State v. Counterman
461 So. 2d 664 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1984)
In re May
458 So. 2d 475 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1984)
May v. Fuqua
449 So. 2d 1028 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
452 So. 2d 800, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-may-lactapp-1984.