Robertson v. Norwood

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Robertson v. Norwood

234 So. 2d 509, 1970 La. App. LEXIS 5580

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 6, 1970

DocketNo. 4178

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 234 So. 2d 509 (Robertson v. Norwood) 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

Robertson v. Norwood, 234 So. 2d 509, 1970 La. App. LEXIS 5580 (La. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

REDMANN, Judge.

Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the motion for devolu-tive appeal filed February 9, 1970 and appeal bond filed March 4, 1970 were too late as an appeal from a judgment signed November 12, 1969.

The motion and bond were timely filed under LSA-C.C.P. 2087(2), because filed within 90 days of the trial court’s refusal on December 12, 1969 of a timely filed application for a new trial. That application, filed November 20, 1969, was timely under C.C.P. art. 1974 because filed within three days of a re[510]*510quired notice of judgment which was mailed November 17, 1969- Notice was required, C.C.P. art. 1913, because the case was taken under advisement by the trial court, as the court’s minutes of November 10, 1969 show.

Accordingly the motion to dismiss is denied.

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

REDMANN, Judge.

Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the motion for devolu-tive appeal filed February 9, 1970 and appeal bond filed March 4, 1970 were too late as an appeal from a judgment signed November 12, 1969.

The motion and bond were timely filed under LSA-C.C.P. 2087(2), because filed within 90 days of the trial court’s refusal on December 12, 1969 of a timely filed application for a new trial. That application, filed November 20, 1969, was timely under C.C.P. art. 1974 because filed within three days of a re[510]*510quired notice of judgment which was mailed November 17, 1969- Notice was required, C.C.P. art. 1913, because the case was taken under advisement by the trial court, as the court’s minutes of November 10, 1969 show.

Accordingly the motion to dismiss is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 So. 2d 509, 1970 La. App. LEXIS 5580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-norwood-lactapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack