Bailey v. Khoury

840 So. 2d 585, 2002 WL 2012423
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bailey v. Khoury. Read the opinion of the Court — 840 So. 2d 582
Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided August 28, 2002·No. No. 2002-C-0199·Published

Opinions

JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG, Judge.

Relator Eekerd Corporation’s response to the Rule To Show Cause shows that Eekerd was not at fault as to the lateness of its writ application and, in fact, was diligent. It is in the interest of justice to allow Eckerd’s writ application to proceed.

The writ application is granted. For the reasons given in Bailey v. Khoury, et al, 2002-C-0049 (c/w 2002-C-0236), 840 So.2d 582, the plaintiffs claims against Eekerd Corporation are barred by prescription. Accordingly, plaintiffs claims are hereby dismissed.

WRIT GRANTED. DISMISSED.

McKAY, J., dissents with reasons.

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

Bailey v. Khoury, 840 So. 2d 585, 2002 WL 2012423 (La. Ct. App. 2002).

840 So. 2d 585 (Bailey v. Khoury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bailey v. Khoury
840 So. 2d 582 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)