Tadlock v. W. H. Hodges & Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Tadlock v. W. H. Hodges & Co.

357 So. 2d 1268, 1978 La. App. LEXIS 3775

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 5, 1978

DocketNo. 6538

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 357 So. 2d 1268 (Tadlock v. W. H. Hodges & Co.) 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

Tadlock v. W. H. Hodges & Co., 357 So. 2d 1268, 1978 La. App. LEXIS 3775 (La. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

GUIDRY, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

We issued, ex proprio motu, a rule to show cause why plaintiff-appellant’s appeal in this matter should not be dismissed due to her failure to timely file an appeal bond. Plaintiff-appellant has answered the rule.

We dismiss the appeal.

The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant on October 27, 1977, and notice of judgment was mailed by the clerk of court on the same day.

A summary judgment is a final, appealable judgment. LSA-C.C.P. art. 968. Since a new trial was not applied for, appellant had until January 9,1978, within which to perfect her devolutive appeal. LSA-C. C.P. art. 2087. Plaintiff-appellant timely obtained an order of appeal on December 13, 1977. However, since the appeal bond was not filed until January 17, 1978, the appeal is untimely and must therefore be dismissed. Act 176 of 1977, eliminating the requirement of security for a devolutive appeal, applies only to appeals in which the order of appeal is granted on or after January 1, 1978. See Robbins v. Estate of Camille Bordelon, 356 So.2d 113 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1978).

For the reasons assigned, plaintiff-appellant’s appeal is dismissed at her cost.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

GUIDRY, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

We issued, ex proprio motu, a rule to show cause why plaintiff-appellant’s appeal in this matter should not be dismissed due to her failure to timely file an appeal bond. Plaintiff-appellant has answered the rule.

We dismiss the appeal.

The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant on October 27, 1977, and notice of judgment was mailed by the clerk of court on the same day.

A summary judgment is a final, appealable judgment. LSA-C.C.P. art. 968. Since a new trial was not applied for, appellant had until January 9,1978, within which to perfect her devolutive appeal. LSA-C. C.P. art. 2087. Plaintiff-appellant timely obtained an order of appeal on December 13, 1977. However, since the appeal bond was not filed until January 17, 1978, the appeal is untimely and must therefore be dismissed. Act 176 of 1977, eliminating the requirement of security for a devolutive appeal, applies only to appeals in which the order of appeal is granted on or after January 1, 1978. See Robbins v. Estate of Camille Bordelon, 356 So.2d 113 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1978).

For the reasons assigned, plaintiff-appellant’s appeal is dismissed at her cost.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 So. 2d 1268, 1978 La. App. LEXIS 3775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tadlock-v-w-h-hodges-co-lactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack