Robert M. Coleman & Partners, Architects VS Crawford Lewis, C&L Professional Services, Inc., et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF I 4NA UISI COURT OF APPE RST CIRCUIT L ROBERT M N0 COLEMAN FARTNERS 2013 CW 054 ARCHITECTS SOS VER JFORD CRA LEWIS C L li PROFESSION SERVICFS TOWNE INC PARK DEVELOPMENT SCOTT H R LLC CRAWFORD Re 2013 D A JAMES LEYdIS In MAY 21 CENTER OFFICE Robert for man Col M Partners s wrii supervisory d ai WIiZPPLE J C THERIOT TO court furnisYied by ty securi erred PAkRO D GRANT forth in Ta that 2C12 4 the court bond ished fur orderec is sh furn udgments appeal previously a new P arts C 70232 AND HwGGINBOTHAM by GRANTED WITH ORDER 4 21 art of the Marcn 22 Arccrdingiy it L erita r ipple s and unts en de allour to o WRTT P C suspensive appeal by defenuants December KUHI1 Nc in determining that the appea bcnd C L 4 sufficient ere Strateyies Capital set as District JJ EXPEDITE e TY trial expedite bond appeal Parish of East Baton Rouge Ccurt MOTION tu Judicial 9th 1 suspensive BEFORE Architects appiyinq motion re ta1 r supple bond 2011 is a and ordered d bo app2al invnlid ants c defe fcr The trial i nity opport to d ovid p in La an as 5126 5124 RHP JEK MRT Whipple C c in art ard diss in part J or curs nts I wou grant the moti to expedite but on the sho d on ng a made I oaould deny the writ application Higginbotham part I would assign dccketed grant the writ appeal COURT OF J the APPEAL 2013 FIRST r K CLEF OF OURT FOF THE COIJRT to o part and expedite the same panel CA 0549 wi11 be T CIkCJ X PUTY motion applicatien under in concurs dissents but I weuld to which gned assi in the I

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.