Nugent v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Nugent v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

551 So. 2d 797, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1818, 1989 WL 127175

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 25, 1989

DocketNo. W89-1053

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 551 So. 2d 797 (Nugent v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.) 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

Nugent v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 551 So. 2d 797, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1818, 1989 WL 127175 (La. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY:

A litigant is prohibited from including a demand for a specific sum of money in the allegations or prayer of his pleading. La. C.C.P. Art. 893. The nature and amount of the demand shall decide whether a principal or incidental demand is triable by a jury. La. C.C.P. Art. 1731. A jury trial is not available where the amount in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed $20,000.00. La. C.C.P. Art. 1732. Plaintiff’s or defendant’s right to a jury trial depends on the good faith amount in dispute. Cambridge Corner Corp. v. Menard, 525 So.2d 527 (La.1988). The party who contends he comes within an exception to a general rule established by statute must prove it. Cambridge Corner Corp. v. Menard, supra; Hortman-Salmen v. White, 168 La. 1049, 123 So. 709 (1929). Plaintiff, in order to have defendant’s request for a jury trial stricken on the basis that the good faith amount in dispute is less than $20,000.00, must prove it. Until the plaintiff’s petition is amended to claim the amount in dispute is less than the jurisdictional amount required for a jury trial, or until plaintiff has proven at a hearing to strike defendant’s demand for a jury trial that the good faith amount in dispute is $20,000.00 or less, the plaintiff is not entitled to have defendant’s request for a jury trial stricken. For these reasons, relator is still presently entitled to a jury trial and the trial court’s order, dated August 16, 1989, denying such jury trial is hereby reversed, vacated, and set aside.

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

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY:

A litigant is prohibited from including a demand for a specific sum of money in the allegations or prayer of his pleading. La. C.C.P. Art. 893. The nature and amount of the demand shall decide whether a principal or incidental demand is triable by a jury. La. C.C.P. Art. 1731. A jury trial is not available where the amount in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed $20,000.00. La. C.C.P. Art. 1732. Plaintiff’s or defendant’s right to a jury trial depends on the good faith amount in dispute. Cambridge Corner Corp. v. Menard, 525 So.2d 527 (La.1988). The party who contends he comes within an exception to a general rule established by statute must prove it. Cambridge Corner Corp. v. Menard, supra; Hortman-Salmen v. White, 168 La. 1049, 123 So. 709 (1929). Plaintiff, in order to have defendant’s request for a jury trial stricken on the basis that the good faith amount in dispute is less than $20,000.00, must prove it. Until the plaintiff’s petition is amended to claim the amount in dispute is less than the jurisdictional amount required for a jury trial, or until plaintiff has proven at a hearing to strike defendant’s demand for a jury trial that the good faith amount in dispute is $20,000.00 or less, the plaintiff is not entitled to have defendant’s request for a jury trial stricken. For these reasons, relator is still presently entitled to a jury trial and the trial court’s order, dated August 16, 1989, denying such jury trial is hereby reversed, vacated, and set aside.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 So. 2d 797, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1818, 1989 WL 127175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nugent-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-lactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack