Scoggins v. Jones

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Scoggins v. Jones

442 So. 2d 1202, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9774

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 6, 1983

DocketNo. 16172-CA

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 442 So. 2d 1202 (Scoggins v. Jones) 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

Scoggins v. Jones, 442 So. 2d 1202, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9774 (La. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal by the plaintiff and one of the defendants from a judgment rendered and signed in a police juror election context, we rule as follows:

(1) The Motion to Dismiss the Appeal is overruled, since the duty to timely file the record in this court is that of the Clerk of Court for the District Court and the failure of that official to do so is not chargeable to the plaintiff-appellant. Further, no prejudice to the defendant has been shown because of this failure.

(2) We find no merit to defendant’s contention that the trial judge erred in overruling his exceptions directed at plaintiff’s failure to post the petition as required by the Election Code, concluding that the ruling in Charbonnet v. Braden, 358 So.2d 360, dealing with this precise question is dispositive of the issue.

(3) Conversely, we find merit in plaintiff’s argument that the trial judge erred in dismissing his suit because the trial date was fixed on the seventh day rather than on the fourth day after plaintiff filed his suit as required by R.S. 18:1406(C).

It is our ruling that the fixing of matters for trial is clearly the responsibility of the trial judge. La.C.C.P. Arts. 191, 193, 194, 1571. In the absence of record evidence that plaintiff was involved in this fixing to the extent that he should be held responsible, and also in the absence of evidence of prejudice to defendants by the particular fixing, we do not conclude that plaintiff should be chargeable with the trial judge’s failure in this particular instance to comply with the Election Code.

For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff’s suit and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal by the plaintiff and one of the defendants from a judgment rendered and signed in a police juror election context, we rule as follows:

(1) The Motion to Dismiss the Appeal is overruled, since the duty to timely file the record in this court is that of the Clerk of Court for the District Court and the failure of that official to do so is not chargeable to the plaintiff-appellant. Further, no prejudice to the defendant has been shown because of this failure.

(2) We find no merit to defendant’s contention that the trial judge erred in overruling his exceptions directed at plaintiff’s failure to post the petition as required by the Election Code, concluding that the ruling in Charbonnet v. Braden, 358 So.2d 360, dealing with this precise question is dispositive of the issue.

(3) Conversely, we find merit in plaintiff’s argument that the trial judge erred in dismissing his suit because the trial date was fixed on the seventh day rather than on the fourth day after plaintiff filed his suit as required by R.S. 18:1406(C).

It is our ruling that the fixing of matters for trial is clearly the responsibility of the trial judge. La.C.C.P. Arts. 191, 193, 194, 1571. In the absence of record evidence that plaintiff was involved in this fixing to the extent that he should be held responsible, and also in the absence of evidence of prejudice to defendants by the particular fixing, we do not conclude that plaintiff should be chargeable with the trial judge’s failure in this particular instance to comply with the Election Code.

For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff’s suit and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 So. 2d 1202, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scoggins-v-jones-lactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack