# Hernandez v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · October 16, 2002 · 841 So. 2d 808

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7758086

## Case

- **Full name:** Vickie HERNANDEZ v. STATE of Louisiana, THROUGH the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT Jude E. Bailey and Arthur Bailey v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Transportation and Development
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** October 16, 2002
- **Citations:** 841 So. 2d 808; 2002 WL 31399047
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Plotkin
- **Judges:** Armstrong, Bagneris, Bbyrnes, Byrnes, III, Jones, Kirby, Love, McKay, Murray, Plotkin, Tobias, Waltzer
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7758086

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that “there are three ways that a final judgment may be challenged: (1) timely application for a new trial, (2) petition for nullity, and (3) timely appeal”

## Opinion text

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
1PLOTKIN, J.
This Court granted an En Banc rehearing to Vickie Hernandez, but did not grant an En Banc rehearing to Jude and Arthur Bailey 2 .
On rehearing, a majority of the Court voted to affirm the panel decision and to deny rehearing for reasons stated in the original opinion, or concur.
In addition, the majority adopts, in part, the reasoning and holding in Angelo v. Ales, (La.App.1 cir. 12/22/94), 649 So.2d 1042 .
AFFIRMED.
ARMSTRONG, J., concurs in the result.
MURRAY, J., concurs with reasons.
KIRBY, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by judge MURRAY.
BYRNES, C.J., dissents in part and concurs in part.
JONES, J., dissents in part and concurs in part for the reasons assigned by BYRNES, Chief Judge and LOVE, Judge.
MCKAY, J., dissents.
BAGNERIS, J., concurs with BYRNES, C.J., dissents in part and concurs in part.
LOVE, J., dissents in part and concurs in part.
. As a courtesy to the Bailey brothers’ counsel, the Court allowed oral argument. The three original panel members denied rehearing, as of this date.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7758086. Public record. Not legal advice.