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

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided October 29, 1996·No. No. 95-CA-711·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

683 So. 2d 878 (Peterson v. Parish) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related