Capitol House Preservation Co. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Capitol House Preservation Co. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc.

754 So. 2d 937, 2000 La. LEXIS 463

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Capitol House Preservation Co. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 2002 La. LEXIS 1974 →

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided February 11, 2000·No. No. 1999-C-3446·Published

Opinion

[938]*938In re Argosy Gaming Company; Catfish Queen Prtn.; Argosy of Louisiana Inc.;— Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 418,525; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 98 CA 2216.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., not on panel; LEMMON, J., concurs, not necessarily agreeing that the period of limitation in La.Rev.Stat. 51:1409 E is peremptive, especially since the Legislative expressly used the word “prescription” and nothing indicates an intent or a necessity for peremptive classification.

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

[938]*938In re Argosy Gaming Company; Catfish Queen Prtn.; Argosy of Louisiana Inc.;— Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 418,525; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 98 CA 2216.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., not on panel; LEMMON, J., concurs, not necessarily agreeing that the period of limitation in La.Rev.Stat. 51:1409 E is peremptive, especially since the Legislative expressly used the word “prescription” and nothing indicates an intent or a necessity for peremptive classification.

Capitol House Preservation Co. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc., 754 So. 2d 937, 2000 La. LEXIS 463 (La. 2000).

Pincite

754 So. 2d 937 (Capitol House Preservation Co. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related