Whittaker v. Vetsher, Inc.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 12, 1977 342 So. 2d 256; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 9, 1976 333 So. 2d 689; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 22, 1969 230 So. 2d 392; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 28, 1952 58 So. 2d 346; La., March 15, 1880 32 La. Ann. 352; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., March 11, 1981 396 So. 2d 535
Whittaker v. Vetsher, Inc., 338 So. 2d 798 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Liuzza v. Panzer 333 So. 2d 689
- Watson v. Schmidt 172 La. 761
- Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Marks 223 La. 662
Opinion text
SAMUEL, Judge. On May 20, 1976, appellee Vetsher, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the suspensive appeal taken herein. By judgment of this court handed down June 9, 1976, we dismissed that motion. 1 Appellee then filed an application for a rehearing which, in accordance with Rule XI, § 6, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, we did not consider. 2 Thereafter, appellee filed another motion to dismiss. The second motion is based on the fact that the amount of the appeal bond had not been fixed by the trial court in its order of appeal. The first motion to dismiss was based on an insufficiency of the bond furnished. *799 However, in a supplemental brief filed in support of the first motion prior to the date of our June 9, 1976 judgment dismissing that motion, appellee argued as an additional ground that the amount of the appeal bond had not been fixed by the trial court in its order of appeal and that the appeal also must be dismissed on that ground. As the ground urged in the second motion was considered prior to our judgment dismissing the first motion, 3 the second motion amounts to nothing more than an application for a rehearing, a procedure prohibited by our Rule XI, § 6. For the foregoing reasons, the second motion to dismiss the appeal also is denied. MOTION DENIED. . 333 So.2d 689 . . In pertinent part § 6 reads: “An application for rehearing will not be considered when the judgment of the court has merely overruled a motion to dismiss an appeal . . . In both motions mover relied on Watson v. Schmidt, 172 La. 761 , 135 So. 232 . But see the later Supreme Court case of Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Marks, 223 La. 662 , 66 So.2d 585 .