Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hayes v. Panola-Harrison Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Citations: 564 So. 2d 738; 1990 La. App. LEXIS 1603; 1990 WL 84430Docket: No. 21,595-CA
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 20, 1990; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Curtis L. Hayes, Jr. appealed the dismissal with prejudice of his personal injury lawsuit against Panola Harrison Electric Cooperative, Inc., which was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the trial. The dismissal was based on LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1672, which allows for such a dismissal when a party does not appear. Hayes filed his suit in August 1988, and his attorney requested a ten-day notice of trial. However, after the attorney withdrew on April 18, 1989, Hayes, who was incarcerated at Wade Correctional Center, was notified of the withdrawal but not adequately informed about the trial status. On June 19, 1989, Hayes requested notice of the trial date, and a deputy clerk responded that no trial date had been set yet, which was documented in the court's minutes. On June 29, 1989, the case was taken up for trial without Hayes being present or represented by counsel. The defendant's counsel motioned for dismissal, which the court granted. An affidavit from the Director of Classification at the correctional center claimed Hayes received notice of the trial date on June 15, 1989. The appellate court emphasized that LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1571 and Art. 1572 mandate adequate notice of trial to ensure parties can prepare, reinforcing the principle of procedural due process. The court found that Hayes's request for notice was valid, and the deputy clerk's response created confusion about the status of the trial. Therefore, even if Hayes received prior notice, the subsequent communication from the clerk led him to reasonably believe he had not been properly informed about the trial date. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that Hayes did not receive adequate notice as required by law, and the dismissal was unjust. The district court's judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings, with costs of the appeal assessed to the appellee.