Wilson Chase Long v. Amy Lazarus

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 5, 2008
• Docket: CW-0008-1161
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT P.O. Box 16577 Lake Charles LA 70616 (337) 433-9403

Philip Allan LeTard Attorney at Law P. O. Box 187 Vidalia LA 71373

REHEARING ACTION: November 5, 2008

Docket Number: 08 01161-CW

WILSON CHASE LONG VERSUS AMY LAZARUS

Writ Application from Avoyelles Parish Case No. 2007-1096 H

BEFORE JUDGES:

Hon. John D. Saunders Hon. Jimmie C. Peters Hon. Marc T. Amy

As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the application

for rehearing filed by Amy Lazarus has this day been

GRANTED (See Per Curiam)

cc: Cory Paul Roy, Counsel for the Respondent NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

08-1161

WILSON CHASE LONG

VERSUS

AMY LAZARUS

************

ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF AVOYLLES, NO. 2007-1096 H HONORABLE MARK A. JEANSONNE, DISTRICT JUDGE

PER CURIAM

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Jimmie C. Peters, and Marc T. Amy, Judges.

REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

Philip A. Letard Attorney at Law 109 Carter Street Vidalia, LA 71373 (318) 336-8990 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT: Amy Lazarus

Cory Paul Roy Attorney at Law Post Office Box 544 Marksville, LA 71351 (318) 240-7800 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT: Wilson Chase Long PER CURIAM.

The applicant has filed a motion for reconsideration of this court’s denial of the

relator’s supervisory writ application based on the untimely filing of the writ

application. In her motion for reconsideration, the applicant alleges that certain

representations were made off the record indicating that a written judgment was

contemplated. See Kosmitis v. Bailey, 96-1573 (La.10/4/96), 680 So.2d 167. Because

the applicant is relying on representations not of record, in the interest of justice, we

remand this matter to the trial court for hearing to determine whether a written

judgment was contemplated.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.