Smith v. Audubon Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Smith v. Audubon Insurance Co.

602 So. 2d 720, 1992 WL 155843

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 26, 1992

DocketNo. 92-CC-1206

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 602 So. 2d 720 (Smith v. Audubon Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Audubon Insurance Co., 602 So. 2d 720, 1992 WL 155843 (La. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

We note, however, that contrary to the opinion of the court of appeal, the letter of the district judge dated April 8, 1991, purporting to sustain defendant’s exception of lack of procedural capacity is not a formal, final appealable judgment. It is not identified as such as required by LSA-C.C.P. Art.1918 and does not purport to either allow amendment or dismiss plaintiff’s individual action in accordance with LSA-C.C.P. Art. 933. Hinchman v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 130, 292 So.2d 717 (La.1974) is distinguishable. The letter does [721]*721not constitute formal action by the district court on the exception and is not reviewable by appeal or supervisory writs. Thus, the court of appeal did not err in refusing to consider the issue under its supervisory jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

We note, however, that contrary to the opinion of the court of appeal, the letter of the district judge dated April 8, 1991, purporting to sustain defendant’s exception of lack of procedural capacity is not a formal, final appealable judgment. It is not identified as such as required by LSA-C.C.P. Art.1918 and does not purport to either allow amendment or dismiss plaintiff’s individual action in accordance with LSA-C.C.P. Art. 933. Hinchman v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 130, 292 So.2d 717 (La.1974) is distinguishable. The letter does [721]*721not constitute formal action by the district court on the exception and is not reviewable by appeal or supervisory writs. Thus, the court of appeal did not err in refusing to consider the issue under its supervisory jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

602 So. 2d 720, 1992 WL 155843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-audubon-insurance-co-la-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack