13052 Precedential Dismissed Processed

Anderson v. City of Baton Rouge

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed January 21, 1980 · 381 So. 2d 842

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., September 30, 1982 422 So. 2d 1176; La. Ct. App. 2d Cir., November 1, 1976 338 So. 2d 1190

Cited by

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. State Workers' Compensation Second Injury Board 35 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Jim & Lu Enterprises, Inc. v. ABC BOARD 778 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
McGee v. Jones 516 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Winterrowd v. Travelers Indem. Co. 440 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Gilcrease v. Gilcrease 438 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
West v. Louisiana Dept. of Public Safety 432 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Thomas v. Department of Corrections 430 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

In Re State in Interest of Curley 287 So. 2d 558

Opinion text

381 So.2d 842 (1980) Mike ANDERSON d/b/a Collegetown Seafood v. The CITY OF BATON ROUGE. No. 13052. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. January 21, 1980. Rehearing Denied March 31, 1980. Lewis O. Unglesby, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant Mike Anderson. Joseph Keogh, Norbert C. Rayford, Parish Attys. Office, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees City of Baton Rouge. Before EDWARDS, LEAR and GREENE, JJ. GREENE, Judge. Plaintiff appeals the lower court judgment denying him a municipal liquor license permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages having an alcoholic content of more than six per cent by volume. The Baton Rouge Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and the City Council had previously denied appellant this liquor license. We notice ex proprio motu that this appeal was not filed timely. The trial court judgment sought to be appealed was signed *843 on April 27, 1979. The order granting this appeal was signed and filed on May 23, 1979. This appeal is controlled by Louisiana Revised Statute 26:104 which provides for devolutive appeal of the trial court's judgment "Within ten calendar days of the signing of the judgment by the district court in any such appeal case . . ." The question of timeliness of an appeal is jurisdictional which we must consider. In re State in the interest of Curley, 287 So.2d 558 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1973). Since this appeal was not perfected within ten days of the signing of the judgment by the district court, it must be dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED.