Succession of Wafer

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Succession of Wafer

703 So. 2d 1293, 1997 La. LEXIS 3684, 1997 WL 746778

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 21, 1997

DocketNo. 97-CC-2275

StatusPublished

This text of 703 So. 2d 1293 (Succession of Wafer) 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

Succession of Wafer, 703 So. 2d 1293, 1997 La. LEXIS 3684, 1997 WL 746778 (La. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Wafer, Opal Flynn; Collinsworth, Betty Lou Wafer; Hood, Priscilla Wafer;— Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 6-001; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 30259-CA.

Granted. Under the 1997 amendment to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B)(1), a partial judgment as to one or more but less than all of the claims, demands, issues, theories, or parties, shall constitute a final judgment unless specifically agreed upon by the parties or unless designated as a final judgment by the court after an express determination there is no just reason for delay. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for a determination, in light of this article, as to whether the judgment rendered on October 29, 1996 is an appealable partial final judgment

KNOLL, J., not on panel.

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

In re Wafer, Opal Flynn; Collinsworth, Betty Lou Wafer; Hood, Priscilla Wafer;— Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 6-001; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 30259-CA.

Granted. Under the 1997 amendment to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B)(1), a partial judgment as to one or more but less than all of the claims, demands, issues, theories, or parties, shall constitute a final judgment unless specifically agreed upon by the parties or unless designated as a final judgment by the court after an express determination there is no just reason for delay. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for a determination, in light of this article, as to whether the judgment rendered on October 29, 1996 is an appealable partial final judgment

KNOLL, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 So. 2d 1293, 1997 La. LEXIS 3684, 1997 WL 746778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/succession-of-wafer-la-1997.