No. 7586 Precedential Dismissed Processed

Elliott v. Di Mari, Corp.

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit · Filed October 13, 1976 · 411 So. 2d 1088

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 10, 1969 220 So. 2d 136; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 15, 1919 2 Pelt. 517; La., July 1, 1880 1 Mann. Unrep. Cas. 227; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., May 21, 1980 385 So. 2d 540; La. Ct. App. 2d Cir., December 5, 1950 49 So. 2d 458

Cited by

McCrossen v. Renovate, Inc. 548 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Lopez v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co. 546 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
LaFrance v. Abraham Lincoln Mercury, Inc. 462 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Gonzales v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 459 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Versailles Arms Apartments v. Wheeler 452 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Broome v. Gauthier 443 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Deville v. CALCASIEU GRAVITY, ETC. 422 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Bacile v. Parish of Jefferson 415 So. 2d 950 La. 1982

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Paul v. Adams 338 So. 2d 968
In re Investigation of Alleged Violations of the Civil Service Law & Rules by W. L. … 325 So. 2d 371
People's Bank v. Levy 151 La. 583
Lemann v. Kogos 273 So. 2d 63
Barcom, Inc. v. Doll 119 So. 2d 544
Welsh v. Richardson 94 So. 2d 457

Opinion text

SAMUEL, Judge. The defendant 1 appeals from a judgment evicting it from certain residential premises in the Parish of Jefferson. Possession of the premises is the sole issue presented in this court and appellant’s only claim to its alleged right of occupancy is based on a written lease for a term of one year ending on June 30, 1976. Thus, as appellant’s lease has expired by its own terms and therefore it cannot now be placed in possession, any change in the trial court judgment would serve no purpose nor have any practical legal effect. The appeal must be dismissed as moot. 2 While some claim for damages may survive expiration of the lease in suit, no such claim is presented to us by this appeal. For the reasons assigned, the appeal in this matter is dismissed; all costs in this court are to be paid by the appellant. APPEAL DISMISSED. . Originally erroneously referred to in the petition as “Di Mari Corp.”, but later corrected to “DiMari, Incorporated”. . Paul v. Adams, La.App., 338 So.2d 968 ; Herman v. Style Line Greetings, Inc., La.App., 325 So.2d 371 . See also People’s Bank v. Levy, 151 La. 583 , 92 So. 124 ; Lemann v. Kogos, La.App., 273 So.2d 63 ; Barcom, Inc. v. Doll, La.App., 119 So.2d 544 ; Welsh v. Richardson, La.App., 94 So.2d 457 .