Case Name: Fred PETERSON v. JEFFERSON PARISH
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1996-10-29
Citations: 683 So. 2d 878
Docket Number: No. 95-CA-711
Parties: Fred PETERSON v. JEFFERSON PARISH.
Judges: Before GAUDIN, BOWES and GRISBAUM, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 683
Pages: 878–879

Head Matter:
Fred PETERSON v. JEFFERSON PARISH.
No. 95-CA-711.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 29, 1996.
Hans Joseph Liljebert, Assistant Parish Attorney, Parish of Jefferson, Harahan, for defendant-appellant.
AndreT. Guichard, New Orleans, A. Brace Netterville, Gretna, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GAUDIN, BOWES and GRISBAUM, JJ.

Opinion:
laGRISBAUM, Judge.
In our original opinion, the notice issue was considered by this Court. The appellant's counsel first raised the issue of whether the appellee had proven the Parish of Jefferson had notice of the defect, in accordance with La.R.S. 9:2800, in its reply brief. Rule 2-12.6 of the Uniform Rules of Courts of Appeal provides that a reply brief shall be "strictly confined to rebuttal of points urged in appellee's brief."
While this Court is aware that Rule 1-3 of the Uniform Rules of Courts of Appeal allows an appellate court to render any judgment required by the interests of justice, we choose not to exercise such discretion in this matter.
AFFIRMED ON REMAND.