You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Zeno v. 15th Judicial District Court, Layafette Parish

Citations: 650 So. 2d 262; 1995 La. LEXIS 669Docket: No. 95-KH-0363

Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana; March 6, 1995; Louisiana; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Relator Stanley Zeno applied for a supervisory and/or remedial writ to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, concerning the 15th Judicial District Court in Lafayette. He claims that the district court has not acted in a timely manner regarding a motion he filed around March 29, 1994, for suspension or probation of his sentence. The Court of Appeal orders the district court to either consider and act on the motion if Zeno's claim is accurate, or to accept, file, and act upon the pleading if it is not. Additionally, the district court is instructed to provide a copy of its judgment to the Court of Appeal. Chief Justice Calogero was not part of the panel.

Legal Issues Addressed

Duty to Inform Appellate Court

Application: The district court is required to communicate its actions regarding pending motions to the Court of Appeal, maintaining transparency and oversight.

Reasoning: Additionally, the district court is instructed to provide a copy of its judgment to the Court of Appeal.

Supervisory and Remedial Writs

Application: The Court of Appeal exercises its supervisory jurisdiction to compel the district court to respond to a pending motion, thereby ensuring that lower courts fulfill their duties.

Reasoning: The Court of Appeal orders the district court to either consider and act on the motion if Zeno's claim is accurate, or to accept, file, and act upon the pleading if it is not.

Timeliness of Judicial Action

Application: The Court of Appeal mandates that the district court act promptly on motions filed by relators, ensuring judicial efficiency and timely administration of justice.

Reasoning: He claims that the district court has not acted in a timely manner regarding a motion he filed around March 29, 1994, for suspension or probation of his sentence.