State ex rel. Department of Highways v. McTeague

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State ex rel. Department of Highways v. McTeague

244 So. 2d 263, 1970 La. App. LEXIS 5139

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 30, 1970

DocketNo. 8153

StatusPublished

This text of 244 So. 2d 263 (State ex rel. Department of Highways v. McTeague) 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

State ex rel. Department of Highways v. McTeague, 244 So. 2d 263, 1970 La. App. LEXIS 5139 (La. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLIS, Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss the devolutive appeal taken by the Department of Highways herein. Movers claim that the Department has failed to deposit in the registry of the Court the excess amount of the judgment below, and that under the provisions of R.S. 19:13, the excess must be deposited as a condition precedent to the taking of the appeal.

The Supreme Court held, in the case of State, Department of Highways v. Holmes, 251 La. 607, 205 So.2d 416 (1967), in which the same contention was made, that the making of the deposit was not essential to the validity of the appeal. The motion is without merit.

Motion to dismiss denied.

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

ELLIS, Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss the devolutive appeal taken by the Department of Highways herein. Movers claim that the Department has failed to deposit in the registry of the Court the excess amount of the judgment below, and that under the provisions of R.S. 19:13, the excess must be deposited as a condition precedent to the taking of the appeal.

The Supreme Court held, in the case of State, Department of Highways v. Holmes, 251 La. 607, 205 So.2d 416 (1967), in which the same contention was made, that the making of the deposit was not essential to the validity of the appeal. The motion is without merit.

Motion to dismiss denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 So. 2d 263, 1970 La. App. LEXIS 5139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-department-of-highways-v-mcteague-lactapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack