Case Name: Alden CHAUVIN, Anyce Chauvin Lambert and Melvin A. Cannon v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Valero Refining-New Orleans, L.L.C., Shell Pipeline Company, LP, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., Parkway Pipeline & St. Charles Parish Sewerage District No. 1 through the St. Charles Parish Council
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2017-03-31
Citations: 214 So. 3d 855
Docket Number: NO. 2017-OC-43
Parties: Alden CHAUVIN, Anyce Chauvin Lambert and Melvin A. Cannon v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Valero Refining—New Orleans, L.L.C., Shell Pipeline Company, LP, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., Parkway Pipeline & St. Charles Parish Sewerage District No. 1 through the St. Charles Parish Council
Judges: CLARK, J., dissents and would deny the writ application.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 214
Pages: 855–855

Head Matter:
Alden CHAUVIN, Anyce Chauvin Lambert and Melvin A. Cannon v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Valero Refining—New Orleans, L.L.C., Shell Pipeline Company, LP, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., Parkway Pipeline & St. Charles Parish Sewerage District No. 1 through the St. Charles Parish Council
NO. 2017-OC-43
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
03/31/2017

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
L La. Code of Civil Proc. Article 1974 provides:
The delay for applying for a new trial shall be seven days, exclusive of legal holidays. The delay for applying for a new trial commences to run on the day after the clerk has mailed, or the sheriff has served, the notice of judgment as required by Article 1913.
(Emphasis added.)
This statute specifically addresses the procedure for applying for a new trial. Plaintiffs timely filed a motion for new trial based on the date notice of judgment was served by the sheriff. This request for a new trial was timely, as was the subsequent devolutive appeal.
Appeals are favored under the law. Shell Pipeline Corp. v. Kennedy, 2000-3207 (La. 10/16/01), 799 So.2d 475, 478. Plaintiffs' appeal is reinstated and the matter is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration on the merits.
CLARK, J., dissents and would deny the writ application.
CRICHTON, J., would deny.