Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State ex rel. E.A., 827 So. 2d 594.

28 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Dept. of Children & Family Services Versus Denzel Ridley La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
Joseph J. Bazile, Jr. and Barbara B. Mire Versus Charles E. Zetzmann and Anne Zetzmann La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
In Re: Bryant Joseph Gros, Jr. Applying for Intrafamily Adoption of Annabelle Marie Beck and Amelia Rose Beck … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
App. 3 Cir. 10/2/02), ( (La.
Fidelity Bank v. the Succession of Geraldine O. Dowden La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
In Re: The Interdiction of Willard D. Hamilton, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
The Sanchez Law Firm, LLC v. Habibe M. Sherman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
3 Cir. 10/2/02), (citations omitted).
Albitar v. Albitar 197 So. 3d 332 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
State in the Interest of B.D.L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State ex rel. B.D.L. 193 So. 3d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Sheila Minor v. Freddy Mango La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 10/2/02), (appeal dismissed even though the state, as appellee, did not oppose the court maintaining the appeal of the mother whose parental rights had been terminated).” As such, we cannot extend the delay that Mango had to perfect his appeal in this matter; thus, the appeal must be dismissed.
In Re: C.W.B. and D.A.L.B. Applying for the Adoption of R.M.G.B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 10/2/2), wherein we held that “the defect of not taking an appeal timely is jurisdictional, and neither counsel, the trial court, nor the appellant [sic] court has the authority to extend this delay.” We look to the time limitation placed on appeals in juvenile adoption matters which is governed by La.Ch.Code art. 12
John Anthony Guidry v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative,inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 10/2/02), where this court held, “the defect of not taking an appeal timely is jurisdictional, and neither counsel, the trial court, nor the appellant court has the authority to extend this delay.” As the decisions in E.A.
Guidry v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc. 164 So. 3d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 10/2/02), , where this court held, “the defect of not taking an appeal timely is jurisdictional, and neither counsel, the trial court, nor the appellant court has the authority to extend this delay.” As the decisions in E.A.
State in the Interest of K. A. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Dew v. Blankenship 150 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
David Luxemburg v. Skyline Elevators La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Raymond Sonnier, Et Ux. v. Johnathan Blake Roberson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 10/2/02), (La.App.
Ngozi Owuamanam O/B/O Ekene Nwanji v. Super One La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State in the Interest of S.J.H. v. M.S.H. and J.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 10/2/02), In re Lagarde, Jr., (La.App.
State v. MSH 62 So. 3d 316 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 10/2/02) , *318 ; In re Lagarde, Jr., (La.App.
State ex rel. S.J.H. v. M.S.H. 62 So. 3d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 10/2/02) , *318 ; In re Lagarde, Jr., (La.App.
Sonya Reeder Seaman v. Charles W. Seaman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 10/2/02), (appeal dismissed even though the state, as appellee, did not oppose the court maintaining the appeal of the mother whose parental rights had been terminated).
Seaman v. Seaman 54 So. 3d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 10/2/02) , (appeal dismissed even though the state, as appellee, did not oppose the court maintaining the appeal of the mother whose parental rights had been terminated).
Kathanell Meyers v. Mark Meyers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
John Taylor, Et Ux. v. Leger Construction La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Taylor v. Leger Construction, LLC 33 So. 3d 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Trinity Van Popilowski v. Howard Wayne Wells La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Brown v. Schreiner 929 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
EA, 2002-996 (La.App.10/02/02), .