7048 Precedential Dismissed Processed

Cuccia v. Bozeman

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit · Filed July 15, 1975 · 316 So. 2d 800

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., June 20, 1979 372 So. 2d 807; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 29, 1967 199 So. 2d 382; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 11, 1917 14 Teiss. 364; La., May 15, 1878 30 La. 961

Cited by

Marlbrough v. Zar 713 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Bayou Hunting Club of Hunter v. DeSoto Parish Police Jury 569 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Noble v. Ritterbush 514 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
City of New Orleans v. Russo 460 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Chauvin v. Matherne 419 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Morris v. Transtates Petroleum, Inc. 258 La. 311
Yates v. Egan 273 So. 2d 538

Opinion text

316 So.2d 800 (1975) Jay John CUCCIA v. Warren BOZEMAN and Frank Paul d/b/a Cafe Au Lait. No. 7048. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. July 15, 1975. *801 Occhipinti, Tamberella & Grace, Christopher T. Grace, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Robert G. Stassi & Thomas R. Blum, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants. Anthony L. Glorioso, New Orleans, for Richard J. Ganucheau, Clerk, Civ. Dist. Court. Before SAMUEL, BOUTALL and BEER, JJ. BOUTALL, Judge. On our own motion we ordered appellants, Warren Bozeman and Frank Paul, d/b/a Cafe au Lait, to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, based upon failure of appellants to timely appeal and additionally, to timely post appeal bond. The appeal is from a judgment of preliminary injunction dated October 18, 1974. Appellants applied for a new trial on October 23, 1974 and this application was denied on November 8, 1974. The appeal order was signed on November 8, 1974 and the bond was furnished on February 6, 1975. Code of Civil Procedure Article 3612 provides that an appeal from the granting of a preliminary injunction must be taken and a bond furnished within 15 days from the date of the order or judgment. The application for a new trial does not serve to extend the time for appeal from a judgment relating to preliminary injunction and the 15 day delay for appeal is not held in abeyance by a new trial motion. Morris v. Transtates Petroleum, Inc., 258 La. 311 , 246 So.2d 183 (1971). Additionally, we further note that the Article referred to requires the bond to be furnished within 15 days from the date of order or judgment. In this case the bond was not only not furnished within 15 days from date of judgment, but was not even furnished within 15 days of the judgment denying the new trial. It is therefore evident that appellants have failed to comply with the requirements of Article 3612 and their appeal must be dismissed. Yates v. Egan, 273 So.2d 538 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1973). For the above reasons, appellants' appeal is dismissed at their costs. Appeal dismissed.