Laborde v. Pecot

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided March 17, 2006

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 2006-03-17

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 2006

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Denied in part, granted in part. There is no error in that portion of the court of appeal's ruling dismissing the Tribe's insurer(s). See La. R.S. 22:655(B). However, with respect to the defendants other than the Tribe's insurer(s), the case is remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration of the applicable factors under La.Code Civ. P. art. 641 in light of La. Civ.Code arts. 2323 and 2324, as interpreted in Dumas v. State, 02-0563 (La.10/15/02), 828 So.2d 530 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 942 So. 2d 699 - Laborde v. Pecot

Relies on Dumas v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CULT., REC.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-03-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1In re Laborde, Derry et al.; Augustine, Kenyawn et al.; Blalock, Louis et al.;— Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avo-yelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 2002-3740, 2002-3996, 2002-3997, 2002-3998; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). CW 05-01011, CW 05-01044, CW 05-01057.

¶2Denied in part, granted in part. There is no error in that portion of the court of appeal’s ruling dismissing the Tribe’s insurer(s). See La. R.S. 22:655(B). However, with respect to the defendants other than the Tribe’s insurer(s), the case is remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration of the applicable factors under La.Code Civ. P. art. 641 in light of La. Civ.Code arts. 2323 and 2324, as interpreted in Dumas v. State, 02-0563 (La.10/15/02), 828 So.2d 530.

*524KIMBALL, J., recused.KNOLL, J., recused.JOHNSON, J., would grant.