Legal Opinion

Metropolis, Inc. v. Texada

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided December 19, 1989No. CA 88 1783PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CRAIN, Judge.

After having obtained a money judgment against Ben Texada, plaintiff filed a petition for garnishment with Pelican Office Supply, Inc., Texada’s alleged employer, named as garnishee. Garnishment interrogatories were served on the garnishee, and Pelican, through its President, William E. Casselberry, answered the interrogatories by writing answers in longhand on the garnishment interrogatories, signing them and filing them with the Clerk of Court. Plaintiff then filed a rule against Pelican for judgment pro confesso claiming the answers to the interrogatories were not answers at…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mid-City Investment Co. v. BatisteLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1971
  2. Mid-South Packaging, Inc. v. HunterLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1980
  3. Mid-City Investment Co. v. BatisteSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1971

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Houma Mortg. & Loan, Inc. v. MarshallLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1995
  2. Metropolis, Inc. v. TexadaSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API