From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stuart v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Nov 17, 1989
550 So. 2d 641 (La. 1989)

Summary

In Stuart, and in this case, the filing of the motion for JNOV effectively interrupted the delay for filing an appeal until after the district court had ruled on the motion.

Summary of this case from Horton v. Mayeaux

Opinion

No. 89-CC-1742.

October 20, 1989. Rehearing Denied November 17, 1989.

In re Stuart, Cecil L.; Roussel, Marilyn Peterson; Stuart, Harvey; Stuart, Cecil Jr.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal. First Circuit, No. CW88 1942; Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. "A", No. 53318, 58319.


Granted. Judgment of the court of appeal is reversed; trial court order for new trial is reinstated.

MARCUS and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ for argument.

CALOGERO LEMMON, JJ., concur in the denial of rehearing, but would prefer that this Court write an opinion addressing the issue whether a timely motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict impliedly includes an alternative motion for a new trial so that the trial court can grant either relief.

MARCUS, J., would grant the rehearing.


Summaries of

Stuart v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Nov 17, 1989
550 So. 2d 641 (La. 1989)

In Stuart, and in this case, the filing of the motion for JNOV effectively interrupted the delay for filing an appeal until after the district court had ruled on the motion.

Summary of this case from Horton v. Mayeaux
Case details for

Stuart v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co

Case Details

Full title:CECIL L. STUART, ET AL. v. COOPER TIRE AND RUBBER CO., ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: Nov 17, 1989

Citations

550 So. 2d 641 (La. 1989)

Citing Cases

Horton v. Mayeaux

The primary question herein is whether a district court may order a new trial on its own motion as an…