Moore v. Covington

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Moore v. Covington

448 So. 2d 687, 1984 La. LEXIS 8686

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 6, 1984

DocketNo. 84-CC-0670

StatusPublished

This text of 448 So. 2d 687 (Moore v. Covington) 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

Moore v. Covington, 448 So. 2d 687, 1984 La. LEXIS 8686 (La. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

DENNIS, J.,

would grant in order to clarify or modify the court of appeal’s order. The trial court must conduct a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction within the statutory delay. CCP art. 3602. However, the Code does not and could not require a trial court to issue a mandatory injunction ordering a party to take affirmative action to destroy his own property without a full trial affording due process of law. La. Const. art. 1 sections 2, 4. Black v. Good Intent Towboat Co., 31 La.Ann. 497 (1897); Red River v. Noles, 406 So.2d 294 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1981). If an adequate trial of the mandatory injunction application cannot be afforded on the allotted date, the trial judge may either deny preliminary mandatory injunctive relief or he may continue that matter so as to permit discovery and further hearings. My colleagues evidently think all of this is apparent despite the court of appeal’s order, but I fear that it is not.

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

DENNIS, J.,

would grant in order to clarify or modify the court of appeal’s order. The trial court must conduct a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction within the statutory delay. CCP art. 3602. However, the Code does not and could not require a trial court to issue a mandatory injunction ordering a party to take affirmative action to destroy his own property without a full trial affording due process of law. La. Const. art. 1 sections 2, 4. Black v. Good Intent Towboat Co., 31 La.Ann. 497 (1897); Red River v. Noles, 406 So.2d 294 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1981). If an adequate trial of the mandatory injunction application cannot be afforded on the allotted date, the trial judge may either deny preliminary mandatory injunctive relief or he may continue that matter so as to permit discovery and further hearings. My colleagues evidently think all of this is apparent despite the court of appeal’s order, but I fear that it is not.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 So. 2d 687, 1984 La. LEXIS 8686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-covington-la-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack