Whittaker v. Vetsher, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Whittaker v. Vetsher, Inc.

333 So. 2d 689, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3464

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 9, 1976

DocketNo. 7811

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 333 So. 2d 689 (Whittaker v. Vetsher, Inc.) 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

Whittaker v. Vetsher, Inc., 333 So. 2d 689, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3464 (La. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

STOULIG, Judge.

Appellee Vetsher, Inc., moved to dismiss the suspensive appeal of appellant, Robert V. Whittaker, based upon the representation that the bond posted was insufficient to maintain a suspensive appeal under C. C.P. art. 2124.

As pointed out by this court in the case of Reid v. Blanke, 200 So.2d 132 (1967), the procedure for testing the sufficiency of an appeal bond is clearly set out in C.C.P. art. 5123. Further the Code of Civil Procedure in Article 5125 prohibits the dismissal of an appeal on the insufficiency of the security unless the party who furnished it is afforded an opportunity to furnish a new or supplemental bond. Finally, under C.C.P. art. 2088(5) the trial court retains jurisdiction and is a proper forum to consider objections to the sufficiency of an appeal bond.

For the foregoing reasons the motion to dismiss this appeal is denied at mover’s cost.

MOTION DISMISSED.

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

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

STOULIG, Judge.

Appellee Vetsher, Inc., moved to dismiss the suspensive appeal of appellant, Robert V. Whittaker, based upon the representation that the bond posted was insufficient to maintain a suspensive appeal under C. C.P. art. 2124.

As pointed out by this court in the case of Reid v. Blanke, 200 So.2d 132 (1967), the procedure for testing the sufficiency of an appeal bond is clearly set out in C.C.P. art. 5123. Further the Code of Civil Procedure in Article 5125 prohibits the dismissal of an appeal on the insufficiency of the security unless the party who furnished it is afforded an opportunity to furnish a new or supplemental bond. Finally, under C.C.P. art. 2088(5) the trial court retains jurisdiction and is a proper forum to consider objections to the sufficiency of an appeal bond.

For the foregoing reasons the motion to dismiss this appeal is denied at mover’s cost.

MOTION DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 So. 2d 689, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whittaker-v-vetsher-inc-lactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack