Maddie v. Vosburg

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Maddie v. Vosburg

146 So. 3d 207, 2013 La.App. 1 Cir. 1791, 2014 WL 2547061, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 120

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 16, 2014

DocketNo. 2013 CW 1791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 146 So. 3d 207 (Maddie v. Vosburg) 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

Maddie v. Vosburg, 146 So. 3d 207, 2013 La.App. 1 Cir. 1791, 2014 WL 2547061, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 120 (La. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In Re: Larry Vosburg and Susie R. Vosburg, applying for supervisory writs, 21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston, No. 137,406.

Before PETTIGREW, McDONALD, and McClendon, jj.

11 WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Rela-tors failed to comply with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-3, in that their applications for extension of time to file their applications were not filed within the time fixed for that purpose. The writ application shows that the rela-tors were given until July 18, 2013, to file their writ application. They filed for an extension on July 31, 2013. On August 5, 2013, they were given an additional 30 days to file their writ application. They filed for another extension on September 10, 2013. The relators have made no showing that the delays in seeking extensions were not their fault.

Supplementation of this writ application or an application for rehearing will not be considered. Rule 4-9 and 2-18.7, Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal.

McClendon, j., concurs.

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

In Re: Larry Vosburg and Susie R. Vosburg, applying for supervisory writs, 21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston, No. 137,406.

Before PETTIGREW, McDONALD, and McClendon, jj.

11 WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Rela-tors failed to comply with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-3, in that their applications for extension of time to file their applications were not filed within the time fixed for that purpose. The writ application shows that the rela-tors were given until July 18, 2013, to file their writ application. They filed for an extension on July 31, 2013. On August 5, 2013, they were given an additional 30 days to file their writ application. They filed for another extension on September 10, 2013. The relators have made no showing that the delays in seeking extensions were not their fault.

Supplementation of this writ application or an application for rehearing will not be considered. Rule 4-9 and 2-18.7, Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal.

McClendon, j., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 3d 207, 2013 La.App. 1 Cir. 1791, 2014 WL 2547061, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maddie-v-vosburg-lactapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack