joint motion in Louisiana

2009On May 7, 2007, RTA and TMSEL filed a joint exception of no cause of action based on a decision of this Court handed down on May 10, 2006 in Jackson v. Cockerham, 2005-0320 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/10/06) , 931 So.2d 1138 .

2004Motion denied. — May 1, 2000 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — April 20, 2001 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — July 2, 2001 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — July 3, 2001 — Defendant files a motion to quash for untimely prosecution. — August 30, 2001 — Joint motion to reset hearings to December 17, 2001. — April 22, 2002 — Hearing on motion to quash. [3] Should be "purports." The supreme court, in quoting the section, has, at least twice, inserted "[purports]" following "purposes." See State v.

2004Motion denied. — May 1, 2000 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — April 20, 2001 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — July 2, 2001 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — July 3, 2001 — Defendant files a motion to quash for untimely prosecution. — August 30, 2001 — Joint motion to reset hearings to December 17, 2001. — April 22, 2002 — Hearing on motion to quash. [3] Should be "purports." The supreme court, in quoting the section, has, at least twice, inserted "[purports]" following "purposes." See State v.

2004Motion denied. — May 1, 2000 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — April 20, 2001 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — July 2, 2001 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — July 3, 2001 — Defendant files a motion to quash for untimely prosecution. — August 30, 2001 — Joint motion to reset hearings to December 17, 2001. — April 22, 2002 — Hearing on motion to quash. [3] Should be "purports." The supreme court, in quoting the section, has, at least twice, inserted "[purports]" following "purposes." See State v.

2004Motion denied. — May 1, 2000 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — April 20, 2001 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — July 2, 2001 — Defendant and State file a joint motion to continue the trial. — July 3, 2001 — Defendant files a motion to quash for untimely prosecution. — August 30, 2001 — Joint motion to reset hearings to December 17, 2001. — April 22, 2002 — Hearing on motion to quash. [3] Should be "purports." The supreme court, in quoting the section, has, at least twice, inserted "[purports]" following "purposes." See State v.

1991Ruling of May 2, 1991, 578 So.2d 919 by this court is recalled.

1979Joint motion to recall writ of certiorari, 366 So.2d 557 and 366 So.2d 566 , and to be allowed to withdraw application GRANTED.

1979Joint motion to recall writ of certiorari, 366 So.2d 557 and 366 So.2d 566 , and to be allowed to withdraw application GRANTED.

1963True Corporation, Mr. Walmsley, President of Aladdin Oil Company, Inc. and Mr. Laslie, Treasurer of the latter company without any “other corroborating circumstances.” They dismiss Mr. Walms-ley’s testimony as being purely hearsay and argue that since the testimony of a corporate plaintiff’s executive in a case of this kind is considered as the testimony of the “plaintiff” (citing Southern Hide Co. v. Best, 174 La. 748 , 141 So. 449 ), and since the claim here is the joint claim of both corporations, the testimony of Mr. True and Mr. Laslie taken together is merely that of the “claimant”.

1963True Corporation, Mr. Walmsley, President of Aladdin Oil Company, Inc. and Mr. Laslie, Treasurer of the latter company without any “other corroborating circumstances.” They dismiss Mr. Walms-ley’s testimony as being purely hearsay and argue that since the testimony of a corporate plaintiff’s executive in a case of this kind is considered as the testimony of the “plaintiff” (citing Southern Hide Co. v. Best, 174 La. 748 , 141 So. 449 ), and since the claim here is the joint claim of both corporations, the testimony of Mr. True and Mr. Laslie taken together is merely that of the “claimant”.

1958However, this Court in Chopin v. City of New Orleans, 8 La.App. 152 , in a situation identical with that under consideration here, discussed the effect of an exception of no cause of action and no right of action and did not question the propriety of permitting such a joint exception to raise this identical issue.