Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

675 So. 2d 734

Docket No. 96-CC-0859.

Barnard v. Barnard

Nancy BARNARD v. David Edward BARNARD.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided June 24, 1996.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1996-06-24

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“l/The judge who has been given notice of intention as provided by Rule 4-2 shall immediately set a reasonable return date within which the application shall be filed in the appellate court. The return date in civil cases shall not exceed 30 days from the date of notice, as provided in La. C.C.P. art. 1914.... Upon proper showing, the trial court or the appellate court may extend the time for filing the application upon the filing of a motion for extension of return date by the applicant, filed within the original or an extended return date period. An application not filed in the appellate court within the time so fixed or extended shall not be considered, in the absence of a showing that the delay in filing was not due to the applicant’s fault. The application for writs shall contain documentation of the return date and any extensions thereof; any application that does not contain this documentation may not be considered by the appellate court.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 35 So. 3d 1127 - Stamps v. Canal Indemnity Insurance, 785 So. 2d 1022 - Carter v. Rhea

“had authority under Rule 4-3 to extend the deadline ... since it was the trial court who violated Rule 4-3 and since relator filed his application within the time limit authorized in the order of the trial court, there is no justification for penalizing relator or his client by refusing to consider the application.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 993 So. 2d 1188 - State v. Goppelt, 785 So. 2d 1022 - Carter v. Rhea

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-06-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably 785 So. 2d 1022 - Carter v. Rhea (2001), Grillette v. Warden, Winn Correctional Center (2004)

1 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

180199620002010decided

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 →

¶1PER CURIAM.[*]

¶2Relator has applied to this court seeking review of the refusal of the court of appeal to consider his application for supervisory writs on the ground that the application was not timely filed under Uniform Rule 4-3.[1]

¶3The following dates are pertinent to the issue of timeliness:

1-25-96 Trial court signed interlocutory judgment
2-6-96 Relator filed motion for trial court to fix time for applying for supervisory writs.
2-15-96 Trial court signed order granting relator until 3-15-96 to file application.
3-8-96 Relator filed application in the court of appeal.

¶4The court of appeal, on its own motion, refused to consider relator's "untimely" application. Hence the application to this court.

¶5The trial court violated Rule 4-3 by fixing the time for filing on a date that was more than thirty days from the date of that court's ruling. Nevertheless, the trial court had authority under Rule 4-3 to extend the deadline for filing beyond the thirty-day limit. Accordingly, since it was the trial court who violated Rule 4-3 and since relator filed his application within the time limit authorized in the order of the trial court, there is no justification for penalizing relator or his client by refusing to consider the application.

¶6*735 Accordingly, the ruling of the court of appeal refusing to consider the application is set aside, and the application is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration and action.

¶7KIMBALL, J., would grant and docket the writ for argument and opinion.

NOTES

¶8[*] CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.

¶9[1] Uniform Rule 4-3 provides:

¶10When an application for writs is sought to review the actions of a trial court, the trial court shall fix a reasonable time within which the application shall be filed in the appellate court, not to exceed thirty days from the date of the ruling at issue. Upon proper showing, the trial court or the appellate court may extend the time for filing the application upon the filing of a motion for extension of return date by the applicant, filed within the original or an extended return date period. An application not filed in the appellate court within the time so fixed or extended shall not be considered, in the absence of a showing that the delay in filing was not due to the applicant's fault. The application for writs shall contain documentation of the return date and any extensions thereof; any application which does not contain this documentation may not be considered by the appellate court.

/675/so2d/734 · .json · Public domain