McClelland v. State Nat. Life Ins.
McClelland v. State Nat. Life Ins., 646 So. 2d 309 (La. 1994).
Cited by
- State Of Louisiana v. Christopher Joseph Borne La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
- Succession of Mary Grace Green Burley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
- State of Louisiana Versus Sherneskie Bell La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
- State of Louisiana v. John Randal Eakins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
- State of Louisiana v. Kendarius Dewayne Sewell A/K/A Kendarius Sewell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
- State Of Louisiana v. Leonardo Mastascuso La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
- Lewis v. La. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. 265 So. 3d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- State v. Becnel 220 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
- State of Louisiana v. Bengy R. Cooley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
- State v. Cooley 165 So. 3d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
- State v. Workman 170 So. 3d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
- McLin v. HI HO, Inc. 119 So. 3d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Opinion text
646 So.2d 309 (1994) Leroy McCLELLAND v. STATE NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE. No. 94-OC-2123. Supreme Court of Louisiana. November 18, 1994. PER CURIAM. The application is granted. After the hearing officer in this workers' compensation action on December 6, 1993 denied relator's motion for new trial for reasons unrelated to the merits of the motion, relator filed a motion to withdraw or amend the ruling on the motion. The hearing officer then vacated the original judgment on the motion and denied the motion on the merits. Relator filed an appeal on February 8, 1994, which was two days after the delay for appealing would have elapsed if computed from the December 6 ruling. On defendant's motion, the court of appeal in an unpublished opinion dismissed the appeal because of untimeliness. Both relator's motion for new trial (if, as defendant urges, such a motion is not allowed in workers' compensation proceedings) and his motion to amend or withdraw the judgment were documents seeking further review of the judgment denying his workers' compensation claim. Heeding La. Code Civ.Proc. art. 865's command to construe all pleadings so as to do substantial justice, we construe these pleadings expansively to serve as motions for appeal. We therefore remand the case to the hearing officer to treat the pleadings as motions for appeal, to grant the appeal and to fix the return date. HALL, J., not on panel.