Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

661 So. 2d 1087

661 So.2d 1087

94 La.App.4Cir. 2513

Coleman v. Robinson

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided September 15, 1995

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1995-09-15

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 2008

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-09-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

liARMSTRONG, Judge,

¶1concurs with reasons.

¶2I respectfully concur in the result. A remand is advisable because it appears that there may have been a misunderstanding in the proceedings below. In particular, the appellant’s brief indicates that the appellant believed that only his exceptions, and not the plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction, were being considered, and would be ruled upon, by the trial court. As there is no transcript of the proceedings below, we cannot determine exactly what happened. As about seven years elapsed from the time of the partition agreement until the petition for supplemental partition, there does not appear to be any great urgency that would militate against the delay necessary to clarify the situation. Therefore, the most prudent course is to remand for further proceedings.

/661/so2d/1087 · .json · Public domain