Notoriano v. Anthony
| Decision Date | 21 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 527 So.2d 1120 |
| Parties | Thelma NOTORIANO v. Rebecca ANTHONY. 88 0260. 527 So.2d 1120 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
James E. Cazalot, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Leonard Yokum, Jr., Hammond, for defendant-appellee.
Before SHORTESS, LANIER and CRAIN, JJ.
This action is a suit by a worker against her employer to enforce a recommendation of the Louisiana Office of Worker's Compensation. After the employer filed an answer (which was essentially a general denial), the worker filed motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment. The employer filed an amended answer and a counter affidavit. After a hearing, the trial court denied both motions. The worker then took this devolutive appeal.
La.C.C.P. art. 968 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "An appeal does not lie from the court's refusal to render any judgment on the pleading or summary judgment." This rule of law was discussed in Schaefer v. Lynch, 406 So.2d 185, 187 (La.1981), as follows:
Summary judgment is designed to dispose of frivolous demands and defenses. It is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966. There is no right to appeal from a court's refusal to render a summary judgment. LSA-C.C.P. art. 968. Official revision comment (d) under that article states:
"Since a trial court's action in overruling a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or for summary judgment, is merely an interlocutory judgment causing no irreparable injury, it cannot be appealed, except under the appeal from the final judgment rendered in the case."
For this reason, on our own motion, we issued an order to the employee to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. In response to this order, the employee asserts she is entitled to an appeal pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1351(A) and the cases of Pearson v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 460 So.2d 11 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984); Sciortino v. Levitz Furniture Company, 375 So.2d 1197 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979); and Braddy v. Triangle Timber, Inc., 345 So.2d 1252 (La.App. 1st Cir.1977). La.R.S. 23:1351(A) provides as follows:
Either party may appeal to the proper appellate court from any judgment rendered in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. Except as provided in this Section, the procedure for appeal and the effect thereof shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. (Emphasis added.)
The employee asserts the words "any judgment" applies to a judgment which denies a motion for summary judgment.
La.R.S. 23:1351(A) and La.C.C.P. art. 968 are statutes and, as such, should be interpreted in accordance with the following rules set forth in Bunch v. Town of St. Francisville, 446 So.2d 1357, 1360 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984), as follows:
When a law or ordinance is clear and free from all ambiguity, it must be given effect as written....
When interpreting a law (ordinance), the court should give it the meaning the lawmaker intended. It is presumed that every word, sentence or provision in the law was intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect is to be given to each such provision, and that no unnecessary words or provisions were used. Conversely, it will not be presumed that the lawmaker inserted idle, meaningless or superfluous language in the law or that it intended for any part or provision of the law to be meaningless, redundant or useless. The lawmaker is presumed to have enacted each law with deliberation and with full knowledge of all existing laws on the same subject. The meaning and intent of a law is to be determined by a consideration of the law in its entirety and all other laws on the same subject matter, and a construction should be placed on the provision in question which is consistent with the express terms of the law and with the obvious intent of the lawmaker in enacting it. Where it is possible to do so, it is the duty of the courts in the interpretation of laws to adopt a construction of the provision in question which harmonizes and reconciles it with other provisions. A construction of a law which creates an inconsistency should be avoided when a reasonable interpretation can be adopted which will not do violence to the plain words of the law and will carry out the intention of the lawmaker.
* * *
When the expressions of a law are "dubious", the most effectual way of discovering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malbrough v. Wallace
...seq.; Achee v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement Board, 527 So.2d 1116, 1118-1119 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988); Notoriano v. Anthony, 527 So.2d 1120, 1121-1122 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988). Further, because La.R.S. 22:658 is a penal statute, it must be strictly construed. Scott v. Insurance Company......
-
Usner v. Strobach
...seq.; Achee v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement Board, 527 So.2d 1116, 1118-1119 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988); Notoriano v. Anthony, 527 So.2d 1120, 1121-1122 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988). Tales jurors must have the same qualifications as regular jurors. Thus, deputy sheriffs and deputy clerks of ......
-
Scott v. Clark
...also Achee v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement Board, 527 So.2d 1116, 1118-1119 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988); Notoriano v. Anthony, 527 So.2d 1120, 1121-1122 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988). La.R.S. 13:5105 prohibits a trial by jury against the state or a state agency. It was enacted pursuant to La.C......
-
Testa Distributing Co., Inc. v. Tarver
...also Achee v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement Board, 527 So.2d 1116, 1118-1119 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988); Notoriano v. Anthony, 527 So.2d 1120, 1121-1122 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988). La.R.S. 47:1508 is clear and unambiguous. See Buras v. State, 496 So.2d 517 (La.App. 1st Cir.1986). See also I......