time fixed hearing in Louisiana

2012Normand v. Randazzo, 85 So.3d 707 .

2002Id.

1980Landry, Retired is sitting by Assignment as Associate Justice Ad Hoc in place of Tate, J., upon this case. [1] Code of Civil Procedure, Article 3783 provides: "A written answer to a petition for a writ shall be filed not later than the time fixed for the hearing." [2] But see State v. James, 251 La. 913 , 207 So.2d 389 (1968) where this Court upheld a trial court's decision in a summary mandamus proceeding that where defendant was not commanded or ordered to answer in writing but only commanded to appear and show cause, the court could rule on the mandamus action despite the fact that defendan

1980Landry, Retired is sitting by Assignment as Associate Justice Ad Hoc in place of Tate, J., upon this case. [1] Code of Civil Procedure, Article 3783 provides: "A written answer to a petition for a writ shall be filed not later than the time fixed for the hearing." [2] But see State v. James, 251 La. 913 , 207 So.2d 389 (1968) where this Court upheld a trial court's decision in a summary mandamus proceeding that where defendant was not commanded or ordered to answer in writing but only commanded to appear and show cause, the court could rule on the mandamus action despite the fact that defendan

1972Loeb Co., La.App., 8 So.2d 739 , commented on Act 14 of the Second Extra Session of the 1935 Legislature, the source statute of 13:5032, and stated that this section embodies a peremptory edict to the courts to refuse to consider defenses unless they are presented at one time prior to the time fixed for the hearing'.

1942Under these facts the defendants base their plea and exception on the provisions of Section 18 (1) (B), as amended by Act No. 85 of 1926, as follows: "(B) Unless in the verified complaint above referred to it is alleged (where the complaint is filed by the employee or his dependents) that the employee or the dependent is not being or has not been paid, and that the employer has refused to pay, the maximum per centum of wages to which petitioner is entitled under the provisions of this act, the presentation of [or] filing of such complaint shall be premature and shall be dismissed; when such al

1942Kellogg Co., La.App., 186 So. 389 , wherein it was held that the employee could not maintain a suit for compensation if he had been paid compensation, or was being paid compensation up to the time of the filing of the suit, and also the cases of Hulo v. City of New Iberia, 153 La. 284 , 95 So. 719 ; Hennen v. Louisiana Highway Commission, La.App., 178 So. 654 ; Carlino v. United States F. G.

1942Kellogg Co., La.App., 186 So. 389 , wherein it was held that the employee could not maintain a suit for compensation if he had been paid compensation, or was being paid compensation up to the time of the filing of the suit, and also the cases of Hulo v. City of New Iberia, 153 La. 284 , 95 So. 719 ; Hennen v. Louisiana Highway Commission, La.App., 178 So. 654 ; Carlino v. United States F. G.

1942City of Crowley v. Police Jury of Acadia Parish, 138 La. 488 , 70 So. 487 ; United States v. Shreveport Grain Elevator Co., 287 U.S. 77 , 53 S.Ct. 42 , 77 L.Ed. 175 .

1942City of Crowley v. Police Jury of Acadia Parish, 138 La. 488 , 70 So. 487 ; United States v. Shreveport Grain Elevator Co., 287 U.S. 77 , 53 S.Ct. 42 , 77 L.Ed. 175 .

1942Kellogg Co., La.App., 186 So. 389 , wherein it was held that the employee could not maintain a suit for compensation if he had been paid compensation, or was being paid compensation up to the time of the filing of the suit, and also the cases of Hulo v. City of New Iberia, 153 La. 284 , 95 So. 719 ; Hennen v. Louisiana Highway Commission, La.App., 178 So. 654 ; Carlino v. United States F. G.

1942Kellogg Co., La.App., 186 So. 389 , wherein it was held that the employee could not maintain a suit for compensation if he had been paid compensation, or was being paid compensation up to the time of the filing of the suit, and also the cases of Hulo v. City of New Iberia, 153 La. 284 , 95 So. 719 ; Hennen v. Louisiana Highway Commission, La.App., 178 So. 654 ; Carlino v. United States F. G.

1942Under these facts the defendants base their plea and exception on the provisions of Section 18 (1) (B), as amended by Act No. 85 of 1926, as follows: "(B) Unless in the verified complaint above referred to it is alleged (where the complaint is filed by the employee or his dependents) that the employee or the dependent is not being or has not been paid, and that the employer has refused to pay, the maximum per centum of wages to which petitioner is entitled under the provisions of this act, the presentation of [or] filing of such complaint shall be premature and shall be dismissed; when such al

1942City of Crowley v. Police Jury of Acadia Parish, 138 La. 488 , 70 So. 487 ; United States v. Shreveport Grain Elevator Co., 287 U.S. 77 , 53 S.Ct. 42 , 77 L.Ed. 175 .

1942City of Crowley v. Police Jury of Acadia Parish, 138 La. 488 , 70 So. 487 ; United States v. Shreveport Grain Elevator Co., 287 U.S. 77 , 53 S.Ct. 42 , 77 L.Ed. 175 .

1934Ann. 822 ; Drewes & Co. v. Ham, 157 La. 861 , 103 So. 241 ; John Barkley & Co., Ltd. v. Ham, 157 La. 872 , 103 So. 245 . *626 .It is apparent that the question of whether or not the case is now a moot one depends upon an interpretation of the provisions of Act No. 159 of 1934, section 7 of which reads as follows: “The trial of any action, hearing or proceeding mentioned in this Act shall he held at the time fixed for the hearing of the rule, and in any event not later than thirty days after the filing by either party of any action or proceeding herein authorized, or trial may be held at any ge

1934Ann. 822 ; Drewes & Co. v. Ham, 157 La. 861 , 103 So. 241 ; John Barkley & Co., Ltd. v. Ham, 157 La. 872 , 103 So. 245 . *626 .It is apparent that the question of whether or not the case is now a moot one depends upon an interpretation of the provisions of Act No. 159 of 1934, section 7 of which reads as follows: “The trial of any action, hearing or proceeding mentioned in this Act shall he held at the time fixed for the hearing of the rule, and in any event not later than thirty days after the filing by either party of any action or proceeding herein authorized, or trial may be held at any ge

1934Ann. 822 ; Drewes & Co. v. Ham, 157 La. 861 , 103 So. 241 ; John Barkley & Co., Ltd. v. Ham, 157 La. 872 , 103 So. 245 . *626 .It is apparent that the question of whether or not the case is now a moot one depends upon an interpretation of the provisions of Act No. 159 of 1934, section 7 of which reads as follows: “The trial of any action, hearing or proceeding mentioned in this Act shall he held at the time fixed for the hearing of the rule, and in any event not later than thirty days after the filing by either party of any action or proceeding herein authorized, or trial may be held at any ge

1934Ann. 822 ; Drewes & Co. v. Ham, 157 La. 861 , 103 So. 241 ; John Barkley & Co., Ltd. v. Ham, 157 La. 872 , 103 So. 245 . *626 .It is apparent that the question of whether or not the case is now a moot one depends upon an interpretation of the provisions of Act No. 159 of 1934, section 7 of which reads as follows: “The trial of any action, hearing or proceeding mentioned in this Act shall he held at the time fixed for the hearing of the rule, and in any event not later than thirty days after the filing by either party of any action or proceeding herein authorized, or trial may be held at any ge