Lee v. Maynard
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 1, 1964 165 So. 2d 574; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., November 9, 1914 12 Teiss. 32; La., March 15, 1876 28 La. Ann. 359; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., December 14, 1977 351 So. 2d 312
Lee v. Maynard, 288 So. 2d 93 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974).
Cited by
- Patin v. Dow Chemical Co. 429 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Siracusa v. Kramer 271 So. 2d 546
- State v. Blanton 273 So. 2d 843
Opinion text
SCHOTT, Judge. This is an appeal from a dismissal of plaintiff’s Possessory Action and is before us on the Court’s own motion to dismiss the appeal because i of a juriscjictional deficiency. The following dates Áre pertinent: Judgment signed by trial court July 13, 1973 . Nptice of Judgment to parties, July 16, 1973 ■ Motion for Appeal and Appeal Bond •filed October 12, 1973 Under the provisions of LSA-C. C.P. Art. 3662 the delay for taking a de-volutive appeal from a judgment in a pos-sessory actión is 30 days of the applicable date provided in LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2087. Siracusa v. Kramer, 271 So.2d 546 (La.App. 1st Cir.1972), writ denied, 273 So.2d 843 . Hence, plaintiffs took their appeal too late for the jurisdiction of this Court to attach to the proceedings. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Appeal dismissed. REDMANN, J., concurs with opinion.