Opinion
Docket Number 2012-CA-0767
04-05-2013
Dennis Glass v. Bryan Galley and Maurice L. Tynes
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
22nd Judicial District Court
Case #: 200610371
St. Tammany Parish
On Application for Rehearing filed on 02/19/2013 by Bryan Galley
Rehearing granted. See attached per curiam
________________________
Vanessa G. Whipple
________________________
Page McClendon
________________________
Toni Manning Higginbotham
________________________
Christine L Crow, Clerk
NO. 2012 CA 0767
DENNIS GLASS
v.
BRYAN GALLEY AND MAURICE L. TYNES
ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ. PER CURIAM.
The application for rehearing filed by defendant-appellant, Bryan Galley, is granted for the limited purpose of amending the assessment of appellate costs to reflect that all costs of this appeal are assessed equally against both defendants-appellants, Bryan Galley and Maurice L. Tynes.
In all other respects, the application for rehearing is denied. RE: Docket Number 2012-CA-0767 Dennis Glass
v.
Bryan Galley and Maurice L. Tynes
22nd Judicial District Court
Case #: 200610371
St. Tammany Parish
On Application for Rehearing filed on 02/19/2013 by Maurice L. Tynes Rehearing granted for the limited purpose of considering the arguments on behalf of Tynes that were previously pretermitted; rehearing denied on the merits and original opinion affirmed, except as separately amended this date to assess costs equally against both appellants.
________________________
Vanessa G. Whipple
________________________
Page McClendon
________________________
Toni Manning Higginbotham
________________________
Christine L Crow, Clerk
NO. 2012 CA 0767
DENNIS GLASS
v.
BRYAN GALLEY AND MAURICE L. TYNES
ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ. PER CURIAM.
The application for rehearing filed by defendant-appellant, Maurice L. Tynes, is granted for the limited purpose of receiving and considering the arguments raised by Tynes in his brief in support of this rehearing since his original brief was rejected as non-compliant. Having thoroughly considered the issues, argument, and law raised in Tynes' application for rehearing, we maintain our original decree affirming the trial court's judgment by summary opinion for the reasons assigned by the trial court.
We also note that the assessment of appellate costs in our original opinion was amended after consideration of a separate application for rehearing filed by defendant-appellant, Bryan Galley. We granted that rehearing separately for the limited purpose of amending our original opinion to assess the costs of appeal equally against both defendant-appellants, Bryan Galley and Maurice L. Tynes.
In all other respects, the application for rehearing is denied.