Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number

KARL F. ERMERT, III v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

In re: Hartford Insurance Co.; Nu-Arrow Fence Co. Inc.; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 91CA-0026, 585 So.2d 640; Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. "B" No. 43-927.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., concurs, because the motion to amend the judgment, although an inappropriate method of seeking revision of the judgment, was filed within the delay for appealing, and if the improper motion is treated as a timely appeal, the filing prevented the judgment from becoming res judicata as to State Farm. (If the judgment had become res judicata against State Farm, La. Code Civ.Proc. art. 2164 would not support modification of the judgment.) But if the motion had not been filed within the delay for appealing, State Farm would have been relegated to attempting to annul the judgment in an ordinary proceeding in which the grounds are very limited.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ERMERT v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY
(Nov 22, 1991)