Sciortino v. Levitz Furniture Co.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 4, 1968 211 So. 2d 741
Sciortino v. Levitz Furniture Co., 375 So. 2d 1197 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979).
The holding in the court’s own words
23:1316, we hold, with Braddy v. Triangle Timber, Inc., La.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
Distinguished in 1
- Hazelton v. Soileau 532 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- Flot v. Transportation Insurance Co. 533 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- Notoriano v. Anthony 527 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- Poullard v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 504 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
- Dimarco v. Ace Transportation Inc. 496 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
- Pearson v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. 460 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Braddy v. Triangle Timber, Inc. 345 So. 2d 1252
- Vizina v. Industrial Indem. Co. 374 So. 2d 753
Opinion text
375 So.2d 1197 (1979) Joseph SCIORTINO, Jr. v. LEVITZ FURNITURE COMPANY et al. No. 11021. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. October 23, 1979. ORDER On our staff's questioning the appealability of a preliminary judgment for workmen's compensation against a nonanswering employer, La.R.S. 23:1316, we hold, with Braddy v. Triangle Timber, Inc., La.App. 1 Cir. 1977, 345 So.2d 1252 , (notwithstanding Vizina v. Industrial Indem. Co., La.App. 3 Cir. 1979, 374 So.2d 753 ) that R.S. 23:1351's appealability of "any judgment" under the workmen's compensation statute includes appealability of a preliminary judgment under R.S. 23:1316. We also note, however, that this suspensive appeal on the preliminary judgment is delaying for naught the ultimate adjudication of plaintiff's claim. We remand the original record to the trial court for action on defendant's motion to fix for trial (filed six days after the preliminary judgment) so that the merits may be disposed of in due course, while we retain this appeal with all of its questions as to the propriety of the preliminary judgment.