Canterbury Partners v. Guilliot

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Canterbury Partners v. Guilliot

520 So. 2d 1326, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 835, 1988 WL 17182

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 2, 1988

DocketNo. W88-215

StatusPublished

This text of 520 So. 2d 1326 (Canterbury Partners v. Guilliot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Canterbury Partners v. Guilliot, 520 So. 2d 1326, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 835, 1988 WL 17182 (La. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette.

WRIT DENIED: We find no error in the rulings of the trial court as to the relator’s peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action. The order of the trial court as to the cancellation of relator’s three Notices of Lis Pendens was correct based on the evidence submitted to the trial court. The relator’s application for supervisory writs, in which she relies upon her subsequent amendment of her federal claim, is premature, since relator has not filed a motion for reconsideration of the lower court’s order based upon this new evidence. Since relator has not exhausted her available remedies, this court will decline to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction based upon this new amendment.

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

Appeal from 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette.

WRIT DENIED: We find no error in the rulings of the trial court as to the relator’s peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action. The order of the trial court as to the cancellation of relator’s three Notices of Lis Pendens was correct based on the evidence submitted to the trial court. The relator’s application for supervisory writs, in which she relies upon her subsequent amendment of her federal claim, is premature, since relator has not filed a motion for reconsideration of the lower court’s order based upon this new evidence. Since relator has not exhausted her available remedies, this court will decline to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction based upon this new amendment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 So. 2d 1326, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 835, 1988 WL 17182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canterbury-partners-v-guilliot-lactapp-1988.