Lee-Dee Cigar & Candy Co. of Lake Charles v. Abdelsalam
Lee-Dee Cigar & Candy Co. of Lake Charles v. Abdelsalam, 707 So. 2d 436 (La. 1998).
Cited by
- Succession of Russo 96 So. 3d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
- Hennig v. Alltel Communications, Inc. 903 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
- Bourgeois v. Allstate Insurance Co. 820 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
- Fasullo v. Finley 782 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
- Taylor v. Shoney's, Inc. 726 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Opinion text
CALOGERO, C.J., concurs in the denial of the writ application. The applicant asserts that his filing is timely. He refers to a suggestion, purportedly from ■ this Court’s clerk’s office, that his filing is timely if he “submits, the writ application without argument section, and simultaneously files a Motion for Leave of Court to supplement the writ application.” That procedure is akin to the following. If an incomplete, or sparse writ application is filed in this Court within the time limit afforded in Rule X Section 5 of the Louisiana Rules of Court, we have traditionally respected it as a timely application and have treated it such and allowed additional time within which to supplement that filing. See State v. Sandra Hall, 97-KO-3701 (La.1997). That circumstance is distinguishable from the instant ease, however, in which the outset filing by the applicant in this Court was effectuated on the 47th day after the court of appeal decision was rendered in violation of Rule X Section 5.