State v. Svoboda

60 So. 2d 715, 221 La. 893, 1952 La. LEXIS 1270
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJuly 3, 1952
DocketNo. 40810
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 So. 2d 715 (State v. Svoboda) 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
State v. Svoboda, 60 So. 2d 715, 221 La. 893, 1952 La. LEXIS 1270 (La. 1952).

Opinion

LE BLANC, Justice.

This case was previously before the Court. See 220 La. 260, 56 So.2d 416, 417. The issues are fully stated in the opinion then rendered by the court and it is unnecessary to restate them at this time.

[896]*896On that hearing, the judgment appealed from was reversed and the case remanded to the district court to be further proceeded with according to law. On application timely made, a rehearing was refused.

On the remand, counsel for the surety, E. J. Rovira, filed a motion to arrest the forfeiture of the bail bond. The State objected to the filing of said motion on the basis of the decision of this court at the time the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. Thereupon the State of Louisiana proceeded to forfeit the bail bond in this matter and judgment was rendered in the amount of $3,000 in favor of the State and against John W. Svoboda, defendant as principal, and E. J. Rovira, as surety, on March 6, 1952. From this judgment of forfeiture, the appellant, E. J. Rovira, surety, appealed.

Counsel for the surety appeared in this ■court on the date the case was set for argument and submitted it on the briefs previously filed on the original hearing and on the application for rehearing.

No new issues are raised and the appellant does not point out any error in the judgment previously rendered. It would seem that the matter has become res adjudicata and the issues therein decided are no longer open to attack.

The judgment of forfeiture entered on the remand in accordance with the views expressed by this court is correct and, accordingly, it is affirmed.

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

Related

State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Caldwell Bros. Real Estate, Inc.
169 So. 2d 625 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)
Davis v. Lewis & Lewis
72 So. 2d 612 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 So. 2d 715, 221 La. 893, 1952 La. LEXIS 1270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-svoboda-la-1952.