Case ID: so2d_589/html/0002-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LEMMON, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Karl F. ERMERT, III v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 91-C-2253.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 22, 1991.
   In re: Hartford Insurance Co.; Nu-Arrow Fence Co. Inc.; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 91CA-0026, 585 So.2d 640; Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. “B” No. 43-927.

Denied.

LEMMON, J.,

concurs, because the motion to amend the judgment, although an inappropriate method of seeking revision of the judgment, was filed within the delay for appealing, and if the improper motion is treated as a timely appeal, the filing prevented the judgment from becoming res judicata as to State Farm. (If the judgment had become res judicata against State Farm, La.Code Civ.Proc. art. 2164 would not support modification of the judgment.) But if the motion had not been filed within the delay for appealing, State Farm would have been relegated to attempting to annul the judgment in an ordinary proceeding in which the grounds are very limited.