Andrews v. Trans Union Corp.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Andrews v. Trans Union Corp.

926 So. 2d 495, 2006 La. LEXIS 1228, 2006 WL 998080

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided April 17, 2006·No. No. 2005-C-2562·Published

Opinion

VICTORY, J.,

concurring.

While I believe there may be some problems with the class definition adopted by the district court, my decision to concur in the denial of this writ is affected by the statement made by class counsel in its opposition to defendant’s writ to this court that it intends “upon remand, to request the trial court judge to modify the class definition, out of an abundance of caution, to ameliorate Judge Murray’s concerns.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

VICTORY, J.,

concurring.

While I believe there may be some problems with the class definition adopted by the district court, my decision to concur in the denial of this writ is affected by the statement made by class counsel in its opposition to defendant’s writ to this court that it intends “upon remand, to request the trial court judge to modify the class definition, out of an abundance of caution, to ameliorate Judge Murray’s concerns.”

Andrews v. Trans Union Corp., 926 So. 2d 495, 2006 La. LEXIS 1228, 2006 WL 998080 (La. 2006).

Pincite

926 So. 2d 495 (Andrews v. Trans Union Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.