Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealwrit of certiorari

Related Cases

Flintkote Co. v. Aviva PLC, 769 F.3d 215
View Case »
Welsh v. Welsh, 135 Md.App. 29, 761 A.2d 949
View Case »
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. MPC Investors, LLC, 705 F.Supp.2d 728
View Case »
Higgins v. People, 868 P.2d 371
View Case »
People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 107 Cal.App.4th 516, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 151, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2703, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3472
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mouton v. Armco Inc., 434 So.2d 1105 (Mem)

Facts

Ball Marketing, Inc. sought a writ of certiorari and/or review from the Third Circuit Court of Appeal regarding a decision made by the Sixteenth Judicial District Court. However, the application was not filed within the required time frame, leading to the court's decision.

Not timely filed.

Issue

Was the application for a writ of certiorari and/or review filed in a timely manner?

Not timely filed.

Rule

The court referenced Rule 10, § 4(b) of the Louisiana Supreme Court Rules regarding the timeliness of filings.

See Rule 10, § 4(b), La. Supreme Court Rules.

Analysis

The court applied the rule concerning the timeliness of the application and found that the application was not filed within the required time limits set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court Rules.

Not timely filed.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the application was not considered due to being untimely filed.

Not considered. Not timely filed.

Who won?

The court ruled against Ball Marketing, Inc. because their application was not timely filed.

Not timely filed.

You must be