Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

164 La. 93

113 So 778

Horvath v. Eppling

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided July 11, 1927

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1927-07-11

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the requirement ... that `the petition shall be sworn to' is mandatory, and not merely directory or subject to the discretion of the court, and must be carried out under penalty of dismissal if not followed.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 597 So. 2d 643 - Bertucci v. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

Relies on Coignet v. Nelson · J. Landry & Son v. Labarre · Landry v. Poirrier

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1927-07-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1992

8 state decisions

2019271930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

LAND, J.

¶1 The defendant, Henry D. Eppling, Sr;, has filed a motion in this court to rescind and set aside its order for a writ of certiorari or review handed down in the above proceedings on March 28, 1927, on the ground that the petition of the applicant for said writ is not verified by affidavit, as required by law.

¶2 Act 191 of 1898, § 2, provides:

“That within thirty- (30) days after the' rendition and entry of a judgment, in any case, by the Court of Appeal, the party cast in the suit or any other person in interest, who may feel aggrieved thereby, shall have the right to bring said cause before the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition for its review and determination on questions of law or jurisprudence or concerning the jurisdiction of said Court of Appeals. The party desiring to avail himself of the remedy provided for by this section pursuant to the provision of article 101, of the Constitution of this state, shall, within the delay above mentioned, file in the clerk’s office of the Supreme Court, his petition and application, addressed to the Supreme Court or to one of the justices thereof, in which he shall set forth as briefly as possible the nature of the case, the issue therein and the questions of law, jurisprudence or jurisdiction involved; he shall also annex to said petition a statement or assignment of errors alleged to exist in the decree complained of. The petition shall be sworn to and the applicant shall file therewith a copy of the original petition and answer or other pleadings in the case.”

¶3 This court has repeatedly held that the requirement of section 2 of Act 191 of 1898 that “the petition shall be sworn to” is mandatory, and not merely directory or subject to the discretion of the court, and must be carried out under penalty of dismissal if not followed. Landry & Son v. Labarre, 125 La. 714, 51 So. 697; Coignet v. Nelson, 128 La. 414, 420, 54 So. 925; Landry et al. v. Poirrier et al., 135 La. 731, 66 So. 163.

¶4 It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss be sustained, and that the order of this court of the 28th day of March, 1927, granting the certiorari or writ of review applied for in this matter be, and the same is, hereby recalled and set aside, and that the proceedings taken under said order be, and the same are, hereby dismissed.

/164/la/93 · .json · Public domain