No. 42434 Precedential Processed

Reeves v. Department of Highways

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 7, 1955 · 83 So. 2d 889

Cited by

Vervik v. State, Department of Highways 302 So. 2d 895 La. 1974
Edwards v. State, Department of Highways 271 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Harkins v. State, Department of Highways 247 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Christ v. State, Department of Highways 161 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Jefferson v. Jefferson 153 So. 2d 368 La. 1963
Robertson v. Great American Indemnity Company 136 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
Reeves v. State 80 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Reeves v. State 80 So. 2d 206
Mid-State Tile Company v. Chaudoir 228 La. 634
655 So. 2d 654 not in our corpus
Lacaze v. Hardee 199 La. 566
Newsom v. Caldwell & McCann 51 So. 2d 393

Opinion text

SIMON, Justice. The Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, having refused to consider relator’s application for rehearing, it applied for writs to this court, which were granted. A judgment adverse to relator was rendered by the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, on April 14, 1955. Reeves v. State, 80 So.2d 206 . Relator received notice of this judgment by registered mail on April 15, and its application for rehearing was filed on April 29. The Court of Appeal refused to consider the application on the ground that it was not timely filed within the delay allowed by Act No. 51 of 1954, LSA-R.S. 13:4446. As pointed out in the case of Mid-State Tile Company v. Chaudoir, 228 La. 634 , 83 *655 So.2d 654 . the day on which the notice of judgment was received by relator is not to be counted in computing the 14-day delay, and the holding in that case is controlling here. See also Lacaze v. Hardee, 199 La. 566 , 6 So.2d 663 , and Newsom v. Caldwell & McCann, La.App. 1st Cir., 51 So.2d 393 . Therefore, since relator’s application was filed on April 29, it was timely and should have been considered by the Court of Appeal. For the reasons assigned, the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, is ordered and directed to consider and determine relator’s application for a rehearing in this case. * Respondent is to pay all costs in this- court; all'’other costs are to await final determination bf the case. Rehearing denied Jan. 9, 1956.