Frantz v. Vitenas
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., July 1, 1920 4 Pelt. 116; La., November 15, 1882 34 La. 1123; La. Ct. App. 2d Cir., October 31, 1952 61 So. 2d 539
Frantz v. Vitenas, 347 So. 2d 284 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977).
The holding in the court’s own words
Considering the substantial modification of the original judgment which we amended and affirmed, we conclude that all costs in both courts should be equally divided.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Opinion text
ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM. On application for rehearing defendant calls our attention to our failure to assess costs. Considering the substantial modification of the original judgment which we amended and affirmed, we conclude that all costs in both courts should be equally divided. In all other respects the application is denied. COSTS ASSESSED, REHEARING DENIED.