typographical error in Louisiana

2011In State v. Jason, 99-2551, p. 13 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/6/00), 779 So.2d 865, 873 , writ denied, 01-0037 (La.11/9/01), 801 So.2d 357 , the court held that a typographical error in the habitual offender bill of information which listed the wrong date of one of the defendant’s convictions was not prejudicial to the defendant because it contained the correct case number and section of court.

2008App. 4 Cir.12/6/00), 779 So.2d 865, 873 , this court found that a typographical error in the multiple bill that listed the wrong date of one of the defendant's convictions was not prejudicial to the defendant.

2011In State v. Jason, 99-2551, p. 13 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/6/00), 779 So.2d 865, 873 , writ denied, 01-0037 (La.11/9/01), 801 So.2d 357 , the court held that a typographical error in the habitual offender bill of information which listed the wrong date of one of the defendant’s convictions was not prejudicial to the defendant because it contained the correct case number and section of court.

2005In State v. Jason, 99-2551, p. 13 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/6/00), 779 So.2d 865, 873 , writ denied, 01-0037 (La.11/9/01), 801 So.2d 357 , the court held that a typographical error in the habitual offender bill of information which listed the wrong date of one of the defendant's convictions was not prejudicial to the defendant because it contained the correct case number and section of court.

2025The victim turned thirteen on March 26, 2021. 7 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed 2d 560 (1979) 24-KA-199 9 of the appellate court is not to “redetermine the defendant’s guilt or innocence in accordance with its appreciation of the facts and credibility of the witnesses.” Id.

2025The victim turned thirteen on March 26, 2021. 7 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed 2d 560 (1979) 24-KA-199 9 of the appellate court is not to “redetermine the defendant’s guilt or innocence in accordance with its appreciation of the facts and credibility of the witnesses.” Id.

2023An amended judgment correcting a typographical error in Mr. Hall’s driver’s license number was signed on March 31, 2022. 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) 22-CA-374 1 trial court to issue a temporary restraining order and in due course a permanent restraining order enjoining defendant from suspending his license.

2023An amended judgment correcting a typographical error in Mr. Hall’s driver’s license number was signed on March 31, 2022. 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) 22-CA-374 1 trial court to issue a temporary restraining order and in due course a permanent restraining order enjoining defendant from suspending his license.

2023Clement, 101 So.3d at 469 ; State v. Barrilleaux, 620 So.2d 1317, 1320 (La. 1993).

2022Defendants filed a motion for new trial, and the trial court issued an amended judgment, stating: “[t]his Honorable Court noted a typographical error and amended the judgment as follows: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment herein, with prejudice, in favor of plaintiff Terrance Tunstall, and against the defendants, Elvin Stierwald, Phoenix Insurance Company and Travelers Insurance Company.” Id.

2020App. lst Cir. 1952), which analyzed the propriety of the dismissal of the plaintiff' s suit for failure to timely amend his petition in response to an exception of vagueness, the Third Circuit stated "[ w] hile we, like the First Circuit Court of 3 The scheduling of the Notice of Records Deposition for " March 12, 2016" appears to be a typographical error. 9 Appeal, do not mean to pronounce that a plaintiff has an unlimited time within which to comply with the direction of a court in allowing time to file amendments, we are convinced that, under the circumstances presented here, a judgment of

2019State v. Revish, 2018- 1182 ( La. 9/ 28/ 18), 252 So. 3d 920 . 5The October 30, 2017 minute entry recites November 2, 2017 as the continuance date; however, whether the October 30, 2017 minute entry contains a typographical error or not, the effect remains the same.

2018After noting that "the primary purpose of the attestation clause is merely to certify that, at the time of execution of the testament, the statutory formalities have been satisfied," the court reiterated that when "the formalities have been satisfied, technical deviations in the attestation clause should not defeat the dispositive portions of an otherwise valid will." Bilyeu , 681 So.2d at 58 -59 .

2018In Succession of Bilyeu , 28,701 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/25/96), 681 So.2d 56 , writ denied , 96-2868 (La. 1/24/97), 686 So.2d 862 , the court held that an incorrect reference to the testator, who was a man, as "she" and "her" in the attestation clause was a typographical error that did not nullify the will.

2018In Succession of Bilyeu , 28,701 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/25/96), 681 So.2d 56 , writ denied , 96-2868 (La. 1/24/97), 686 So.2d 862 , the court held that an incorrect reference to the testator, who was a man, as "she" and "her" in the attestation clause was a typographical error that did not nullify the will.

2017Applying that conclusion, the court acknowledged that while the error was not necessarily a typographical error, the un-controverted evidence in the record clearly established that the error was one occurring |2nin the physical preparation of the documents and was not the result of any reasoning, determination, or thought process, noting “not one of the interested parties made a conscious and reasoned decision to exclude the Omitted Property from the transactions.” Id.

2016V, § 8(B).” Id., 12-0089, p. 1, 129 So.3d at 540 . .The actual date on the judgment is January 21, 2014, clearly a typographical error; at the November 21, 2014 hearing, the trial court orally granted the motion for summary judg- ’ ment and directed the parties to “prepare a Judgment.” Presumably the judgment was submitted (and consequently, dated) in 2014 but was not signed by the trial court until January, 2015. .

2015State v. Korman, 379 So.2d 1061 (La.1980).

2014Therefore, according to the Ethics Board, the declaratory opinion is not a decision under LSA-Const. Art. 10, § 21. 7 In the First Circuit case of In re Lorusso, 11-0666 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/29/11) , 85 So.3d 712 , we reversed a decision of the Board of Ethics that held that a political candidate was not permitted to amend his campaign finance disclosure report to correct a typographical error, whereby a particular sum was listed as a contribution rather than as a loan.

2010In State v. Bailey, 446 So.2d 352 (La.

2010The court found, "[c]ertainly they knew the apartment to be searched, and the fact that they thought there was a `D' on the door instead of a `C does not negate the knowledge they acquired during the surveillance." Id. at 354-55 . *154 In the present case, there was a typographical error regarding the municipal address.

2008The misspelled name was a harmless, clerical error. [6] "[A]n attorney who has a filed and stamped copy from the clerk of court's office, should be able to rely on such a document being present in the record for purposes of a hearing at the trial court level." Trahant v. Perez, 02-1414, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/19/03), 843 So.2d 479, 485 . [7] Mr. Martino's testimony was preserved in his deposition because he was seriously ill and undergoing surgery.

2008State Museum, 98-1170 (La.3/2/99), 739 So.2d 748 . [2] This court strongly suspects that the quoted passage is a typographical error that should correctly read, "he/she has the right to use the grievance procedure without fear of coercion," since suit against a grievance procedure seems illogical, but "right to sue" is precisely the language appearing in the labor agreement. [3] See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., prohibiting discrimination by both private and government employers in all aspects of employment based on race, religion, sex, color or national origin; 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , prohibit

2006Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0992 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228 .

2005Sudwischer v. Estate of Hoffpauir, 97-0785 (La.12/12/97), 705 So.2d 724 ; Adams v. City of Baton Rouge, 95-2515 (La.App. 1st Cir.4/30/96), 673 So.2d 624 .

2005Sudwischer v. Estate of Hoffpauir, 97-0785 (La.12/12/97), 705 So.2d 724 ; Adams v. City of Baton Rouge, 95-2515 (La.App. 1st Cir.4/30/96), 673 So.2d 624 .

2005This appeal hinges almost entirely on whether the consent judgment of April 16, 2001, is a "considered judgment" requiring the high burden of proof for modification called for in Bergeron v. Bergeron, 492 So.2d 1193 (La.1986), or merely a "stipulated judgment" calling for nothing more than the usual preponderance of the evidence.

2004However, an affidavit executed by Mr. Hall and contained in the record shows that Mr. Hall actually spells his name "Jonas." (First Supplemental Record, p. 9). [4] State v. LaCaze, 99-0584, p. 21 (La.1/25/02), 824 So.2d 1063, 1079, fn. 37 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 865 , 123 S.Ct. 263 , 154 L.Ed.2d 110 (2002). [5] State v. Fontana, 396 So.2d 1251, 1252 (1981). [6] State v. Fletcher, 02-707, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/30/02), 836 So.2d 557, 559 , writ denied, 03-0409 (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 334 . [7] Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4; State v. Blank, 01-564, pp. 10-11 (La.

2004However, an affidavit executed by Mr. Hall and contained in the record shows that Mr. Hall actually spells his name "Jonas." (First Supplemental Record, p. 9). [4] State v. LaCaze, 99-0584, p. 21 (La.1/25/02), 824 So.2d 1063, 1079, fn. 37 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 865 , 123 S.Ct. 263 , 154 L.Ed.2d 110 (2002). [5] State v. Fontana, 396 So.2d 1251, 1252 (1981). [6] State v. Fletcher, 02-707, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/30/02), 836 So.2d 557, 559 , writ denied, 03-0409 (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 334 . [7] Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4; State v. Blank, 01-564, pp. 10-11 (La.

2004However, an affidavit executed by Mr. Hall and contained in the record shows that Mr. Hall actually spells his name "Jonas." (First Supplemental Record, p. 9). [4] State v. LaCaze, 99-0584, p. 21 (La.1/25/02), 824 So.2d 1063, 1079, fn. 37 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 865 , 123 S.Ct. 263 , 154 L.Ed.2d 110 (2002). [5] State v. Fontana, 396 So.2d 1251, 1252 (1981). [6] State v. Fletcher, 02-707, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/30/02), 836 So.2d 557, 559 , writ denied, 03-0409 (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 334 . [7] Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4; State v. Blank, 01-564, pp. 10-11 (La.

2004However, an affidavit executed by Mr. Hall and contained in the record shows that Mr. Hall actually spells his name "Jonas." (First Supplemental Record, p. 9). [4] State v. LaCaze, 99-0584, p. 21 (La.1/25/02), 824 So.2d 1063, 1079, fn. 37 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 865 , 123 S.Ct. 263 , 154 L.Ed.2d 110 (2002). [5] State v. Fontana, 396 So.2d 1251, 1252 (1981). [6] State v. Fletcher, 02-707, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/30/02), 836 So.2d 557, 559 , writ denied, 03-0409 (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 334 . [7] Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4; State v. Blank, 01-564, pp. 10-11 (La.