Peterson v. Parish

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Peterson v. Parish

683 So. 2d 878, 95 La.App. 5 Cir. 711, 1996 La. App. LEXIS 2613, 1996 WL 622736

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 29, 1996

DocketNo. 95-CA-711

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 683 So. 2d 878 (Peterson v. Parish) 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

Peterson v. Parish, 683 So. 2d 878, 95 La.App. 5 Cir. 711, 1996 La. App. LEXIS 2613, 1996 WL 622736 (La. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinions

laGRISBAUM, Judge.

In our original opinion, the notice issue was considered by this Court. The appellant’s counsel first raised the issue of whether the appellee had proven the Parish of Jefferson had notice of the defect, in accordance with La.R.S. 9:2800, in its reply brief. Rule 2-12.6 of the Uniform Rules of Courts of Appeal provides that a reply brief shall be “strictly confined to rebuttal of points urged in appellee’s brief.”

While this Court is aware that Rule 1-3 of the Uniform Rules of Courts of Appeal allows an appellate court to render any judgment required by the interests of justice, we choose not to exercise such discretion in this matter.

AFFIRMED ON REMAND.

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

laGRISBAUM, Judge.

In our original opinion, the notice issue was considered by this Court. The appellant’s counsel first raised the issue of whether the appellee had proven the Parish of Jefferson had notice of the defect, in accordance with La.R.S. 9:2800, in its reply brief. Rule 2-12.6 of the Uniform Rules of Courts of Appeal provides that a reply brief shall be “strictly confined to rebuttal of points urged in appellee’s brief.”

While this Court is aware that Rule 1-3 of the Uniform Rules of Courts of Appeal allows an appellate court to render any judgment required by the interests of justice, we choose not to exercise such discretion in this matter.

AFFIRMED ON REMAND.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

683 So. 2d 878, 95 La.App. 5 Cir. 711, 1996 La. App. LEXIS 2613, 1996 WL 622736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-parish-lactapp-1996.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack