DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Nunez v. Serpas, 3 So. 2d 673.

13 citing documents.

  • Vehrs v. Jefferson Insurance Co. 166 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
  • Clark v. Richardson 157 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
  • Martin v. Allessi 121 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Counsel for plaintiffs, however, argue alternatively that if the record is insufficient we should remand the matter, citing as authority for this proposition the cases of Wilson Gold Stamping Machine Co. v. Webb Hardware & Furniture Co., Ltd., La.App., , .
  • Miller v. Rollins 111 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    Nunez v. Serpas, 1941, , .
  • Warren v. De Armas 100 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
  • Murphy v. Miller 98 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    The appeal in this case, we think should be governed by the ruling in the case of Nunez v. Serpas, 1941, , , wherein it was held that under the provisions of Act No. 234 of 1932 an appellate court should not dismiss an appeal unless it first allows to the appellant a period of time within which to cure and correct the informalities and irregularities existing in the transcript.
  • Marek v. McHardy 91 So. 2d 773 La. 1956
    The appellees have cited no cases involving a , and Richards v. Horecky, 173 La.
  • Succession of La Pene v. Lagraize 81 So. 2d 369 La. 1955
    pellant, before the date on which the motion to dismiss is fixed for trial, may cure and correct any objection, irregularity or informality, charged or alleged to exist in the motion to dismiss, and if it appears to the appellate court that he has done, so the motion to dismiss shall be denied.” In urging that such statutory provisions are controlling, , .
  • American Adjustment Co. v. Batiste 79 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    and irregularities alleged and complained of in the motion to dismiss; and such appellant may, before the date on which the motion to dismiss is fixed for trial, cure and correct any objection, irregularity or informality charged or alleged to exist in the motion to dismiss, and if it appears to the appellate court that he has done so, the motion to dismiss shall be denied.’ ” , , the defendants-appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in the alternative on the ground “that the transcript
  • Probst v. Di Giovanni 76 So. 2d 909 La. 1954
  • Wilson Gold Stamping Mach. Co. v. Webb Hardware & Furniture Co. 45 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    Under the old rule the appeal in this case would be subject to dismissal, , , the Supreme Court held that this-rule has been modified by the provisions of Act No. 234 of 1932, which, in effect, provides that a court shall not dismiss an appeal unless it first allows to the appellant a period of time within which to cure and correct the informalities and irregularities existing i
  • Wren v. Brock 5 So. 2d 323 La. 1941
  • McDermott v. Kilpatrick 5 So. 2d 332 La. 1941