Kaem v. Jmc

983 So. 2d 1259, 2008 La. LEXIS 1388
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJune 20, 2008
Docket08-CJ-1171
StatusPublished

This text of 983 So. 2d 1259 (Kaem v. Jmc) 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
Kaem v. Jmc, 983 So. 2d 1259, 2008 La. LEXIS 1388 (La. 2008).

Opinion

983 So.2d 1259 (2008)

K.A.E.M.
v.
J.M.C., Born H.

No. 08-CJ-1171.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 20, 2008.

PER CURIAM.

Pretermitting the merits, we find this application is untimely. Relator's writ application in this court was filed on May 30, 2008, eighty-six days after the court of appeal denied her writ application on March 5, 2008 and well outside of the thirty day period mandated by Supreme Court Rule X, § 5. Although relator's application in this court was filed within thirty days from the court of appeal's denial of rehearing, Supreme Court Rule X, § 5(a) extends the thirty-day period for taking writs to this court only "in those instances where a rehearing is allowed" in the court of appeal. Uniform Court of Appeal Rules 4-9 and 2-18.7 do not provide for a rehearing from a denial of an application for supervisory writs.[1] Thus, the delay for taking writs to this court ran from the court of appeal's original writ denial, not its denial of rehearing. See State v. Crandell, 05-1060 (La.3/10/06), 924 So.2d 122; Y.F.B. v. R.D.R., 01-0345 (La.4/12/01), 787 So.2d 276; Morris v. Stueben, 01-0137 (La.1/26/01), 781 So.2d 1220.

*1260 For these reasons, the application is not considered, as it was not timely filed.

NOTES

[1] We recognize the court of appeal's writ denial in this case was done with an opinion and purports to affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, having declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction by denying the writ, the court of appeal was without jurisdiction to affirm, reverse or modify the judgment of the trial court. See Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc., 02-1035 (La.6/14/02), 817 So.2d 1149; see also Davis v. Jazz Casino Co., 03-0276 (La.6/6/03), 849 So.2d 497.

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

Related

Davis v. Jazz Casino Co., LLC
849 So. 2d 497 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2003)
Morris v. Stueben
781 So. 2d 1220 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2001)
Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc.
817 So. 2d 1149 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2002)
State v. Crandell
924 So. 2d 122 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2006)
Y.F.B. v. R.D.R
787 So. 2d 276 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2001)
K.A.E.M. v. J.M.C.
983 So. 2d 1259 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
983 So. 2d 1259, 2008 La. LEXIS 1388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaem-v-jmc-la-2008.