TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cole v. Belknap, Inc.

Jay M. COLE v. BELKNAP, INC., Vermont American Corporation, the Home Insurance Company and the City of Westlake

Cole v. Belknap, Inc., 495 So. 2d 434 (La. Ct. App. 1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 10, 1986
Docket
No. 86-829
Judges
Foret, Guidry, Ton, Yelver, Yelverton
Citations
495 So. 2d 4341986 La. App. LEXIS 7849

Opinion of the Court — Yelverton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

YELVERTON, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

The defendants-appellees move to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant, Jay M. Cole, on the grounds that the appellant has appealed the denial of a motion for a new trial, a non-appealable interlocutory judgment.

A final judgment was rendered and signed on February 14,1986 in favor of the plaintiff. On February 21, 1986, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and said motion was denied in open court on May 30, 1986, with the order being signed on June 5, 1986. The plaintiff then motioned the trial court for, and obtained an order granting plaintiff a devolutive appeal. This order was signed on July 10,1986, and states that the devolutive appeal is from the judgment rendered in open court on May 30, 1986 and signed on June 5, 1986. Movers subsequently filed Motions to Dismiss.

It is well settled that the denial of a motion for a new trial can be appealed only upon a showing of irreparable harm. Dural v. City of Morgan City, 449 So.2d 1047 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2083. However, it is evident that the appellant has appealed the final judgment signed on February 14, 1986, as the appellant’s brief only addresses issues concerning the mer *435 its of the final judgment. The jurisprudence is well settled that where a motion for appeal refers by date to the judgment denying a motion for new trial, but the circumstances indicate that the appellant actually intended to appeal from the final judgment on the merits, the appeal should be maintained as being taken from the judgment on the merits. Dural, supra at 1048 and cases cited therein. The circumstances in the case sub judice indicate the appeal is from the final judgment of February 14, 1986.

Accordingly, the Motions to Dismiss are denied and appellant’s appeal maintained.

MOTION DENIED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1988: 11995: 12011: 119882026peak 1988 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. STATE, DOTD v. Estate of Summers527 So. 2d 1099 (La. Ct. App. 1988)
  2. Ellias v. Ellias651 So. 2d 939 (La. Ct. App. 1995)
  3. W.T.A. v. M.Y.58 So. 3d 612 (La. Ct. App. 2011)

Most recent

  1. W.T.A. v. M.Y.58 So. 3d 612 (La. Ct. App. 2011)
  2. Ellias v. Ellias651 So. 2d 939 (La. Ct. App. 1995)
  3. STATE, DOTD v. Estate of Summers527 So. 2d 1099 (La. Ct. App. 1988)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Dural v. City of Morgan City, 449 So. 2d 1047 (La. Ct. App. 1984) 28

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list