Legal Opinion

Tappel v. Vidros

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided February 8, 1980No. 11303PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MANDAMUS

We grant mandamus to order a trial judge to give written reasons for his ap-pealable judgment in compliance with La.C. C.P. 1917.

The trial judge refused applicant’s request on the authority of Fontenot v. State, Dept. Hwys., La.App. 3 Cir. 1974, 300 So.2d 864 (questioned, obiter, in LaCalle v. Ashy Enterprises, La.App. 3 Cir. 1978, 353 So.2d 439, writ refused La., 355 So.2d 266).

Whether right or wrong, Fontenot and its descendants (Richard v. Richard, La.App. 1 Cir. 1978, 359 So.2d 696; Charles Ragusa & Son v. Community State Bank, La.App. 1 Cir. 1978, 360 So.2d 231) may be…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Charles Ragusa & Son v. Community State BankLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1978
  2. LaCalle v. Ashy EnterprisesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1978
  3. Richard v. RichardLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1978
  4. Fontenot v. STATE, DEPT. OF HIGHWAYSLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1974
  5. Lacalle v. Ashy EnterprisesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1978

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Tappel v. VidrosLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API