Shivers v. Louisiana Department of Revenue

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Shivers v. Louisiana Department of Revenue

273 So. 2d 302, 1973 La. App. LEXIS 6656

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 1, 1973

DocketNo. 9202

StatusPublished

This text of 273 So. 2d 302 (Shivers v. Louisiana Department of Revenue) 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

Shivers v. Louisiana Department of Revenue, 273 So. 2d 302, 1973 La. App. LEXIS 6656 (La. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PICKETT, Judge.

The plaintiff, James Earl Shivers, Jr., instituted this action against the Louisiana Department of Revenue on July 1, 1971, seeking a judgment requiring the Louisiana Department of Revenue to issue him under the provisions of Louisiana R.S. 47:462, subd. A (3), a Class 3 license for his truck-tractor utilized to transport wood chips, and to recover the difference in the cost of contract carrier (Class 2) license previously purchased by him under protest and the value of a Class 3 license. From a judgment rejecting his demands, the plaintiff has appealed.

The judgment was signed and notice thereof mailed on Tuesday, May 23, 1972. Pursuant to the provisions of C.C.P. Article 1974, a motion for a new trial must be filed within three (3) days commencing from the date judgment is signed, except where notice of judgment is required, in which latter case, the three-day delay begins the day after the Clerk has mailed, or the sheriff has served, notice of judgment. In the case before us, the delays for applying for a new trial commenced on Wednesday, May 24, 1972, and expired on Friday, May 26, 1972. Plaintiff did not apply for a new trial until Thursday, June 1, 1972, which was untimely since the last day for applying for a new trial was Friday, May 26, 1972. Since a new trial was not timely applied for, the result is the same as if there had been no application for a new trial.

Consequently, the motion for a new trial and the denial thereof are both inoperable factors. In this instance, the delay for appeal commenced on Saturday, May 27, 1972, and expired on Friday, August 25, 1972. C.C.P. Article 2087. The appeal in this instance was taken July 26, 1972, which was timely, but the appeal bond was not filed until September 12, 1972, which was subsequent to the ninety-day appeal period which expired August 25, 1972. See Chambers v. Russell, La.App., 152 So.2d 349; Clements v. Kimble, La.App., 239 So.2d 704.

Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal, ex proprio motu, for the reason that same was not timely perfected and we are without jurisdiction in this court. Costs to be paid by plaintiff-appellant.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PICKETT, Judge.

The plaintiff, James Earl Shivers, Jr., instituted this action against the Louisiana Department of Revenue on July 1, 1971, seeking a judgment requiring the Louisiana Department of Revenue to issue him under the provisions of Louisiana R.S. 47:462, subd. A (3), a Class 3 license for his truck-tractor utilized to transport wood chips, and to recover the difference in the cost of contract carrier (Class 2) license previously purchased by him under protest and the value of a Class 3 license. From a judgment rejecting his demands, the plaintiff has appealed.

The judgment was signed and notice thereof mailed on Tuesday, May 23, 1972. Pursuant to the provisions of C.C.P. Article 1974, a motion for a new trial must be filed within three (3) days commencing from the date judgment is signed, except where notice of judgment is required, in which latter case, the three-day delay begins the day after the Clerk has mailed, or the sheriff has served, notice of judgment. In the case before us, the delays for applying for a new trial commenced on Wednesday, May 24, 1972, and expired on Friday, May 26, 1972. Plaintiff did not apply for a new trial until Thursday, June 1, 1972, which was untimely since the last day for applying for a new trial was Friday, May 26, 1972. Since a new trial was not timely applied for, the result is the same as if there had been no application for a new trial.

Consequently, the motion for a new trial and the denial thereof are both inoperable factors. In this instance, the delay for appeal commenced on Saturday, May 27, 1972, and expired on Friday, August 25, 1972. C.C.P. Article 2087. The appeal in this instance was taken July 26, 1972, which was timely, but the appeal bond was not filed until September 12, 1972, which was subsequent to the ninety-day appeal period which expired August 25, 1972. See Chambers v. Russell, La.App., 152 So.2d 349; Clements v. Kimble, La.App., 239 So.2d 704.

Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal, ex proprio motu, for the reason that same was not timely perfected and we are without jurisdiction in this court. Costs to be paid by plaintiff-appellant.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 So. 2d 302, 1973 La. App. LEXIS 6656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shivers-v-louisiana-department-of-revenue-lactapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack