Carmen Nicholas VS Terry L. Bonnie
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT CARMEN 2014 NO. NICHOLAS CW 1814 VERSUS TERRY In L. BONNIE MAY 15 Carmen Re: Nicholas, GUIDRY, WRIT issue See 29 v. in is some was of the fraud or the the App. that practices judgment. could and See ( La. La. Code 2011- 1596 force of The Civ. annulled a P. 10/ 7/ unless the cause, consent judge' s judgment any allegations petition to annul 2003; 11) , fraud where and trial 6/ 14/ 11) , . Cir. court consent consent principal file ( La. trial the acquiescence the not lst App. be not did reversed. 10/ 27/ 09) , the of annulling a did not make defendant is the rescinded. for grounds denied, error. ) of the The binding sought or or and have to JJ. as Cir. substance parties' fact the where writ judgment from annulled 2010- 1377 Horrigan, Rouge, to suit lst and DRAKE, parties concluded Court terms of be ill consent 112- 13, is raising erroneous ( La. party rescinded for error cannot in action Baton nullifying ruling the malpractice 2009- 0798 the or judgment agreement legal the THERIOT AND between neither annulled consent 19th writs, East of judge' s trial ( this modifying judgment there in 607- 09 where CRAIN, judgment Drewitz, 607, So. 3d judgment, a The consent liability of Hebert erred HIGGINBOTHAM, GRANTED. the vacating supervisory Parish Court, C616866. No. BEFORE: for applying District Judicial LU1S Horrigan 70 71 So. 3d ill or v. 111, So. 3d 325, practices were not alleged by either party) . MRT EGD TMH Guidry Nicholas the consent malpractice Louisiana 604 indicates 964 writ the that D OF APPEAL, UTY FOR CLERK THE 1132, ( La. Clerk there FIRST OF is this 1133 of So. 3d Court a signed ruling lst App. v. 339, of and East reviewed written State Cir. ) , by v. writ 2014- 4 ( 341- 50 . La. Moreover, this Baton annulling legal See E. A. A. , information writ. the in been jurisdiction. ( La. of have the deny liability type W. G. T. nor would court' s Court Rouge final has Parish judgment which is necessary for review on appeal. CIRCUIT COURT COURT issue 1992) ; 150 and trial appellate application evidencing this ruling, COURT of its 9/ 10/ 14) , Cir. from obtained So. 2d the the to as under So. 2d the neither of Rulings suit. 597 5th App. judgment dissent J. J. , review seeks courts Batchelor, denied, Crain, and Ms .
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.
