Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors)

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors)

553 So. 2d 472, 1989 WL 149605

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 8, 1989

DocketNo. 89-C-2616

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 553 So. 2d 472 (Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carey v. UMC (United Mechanical Contractors), 553 So. 2d 472, 1989 WL 149605 (La. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Carey, Byron; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 89-CA-0215; Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 18623.

Prior report: La.App., 550 So.2d 949.

Writ granted. The judgments of the district and court of appeal granting UMC’s exception of no cause of action are reversed. Plaintiff’s petition asserts that defendants intended to injure him or knew or should have known that his injury was substantially certain to follow. Conditions of the mind such as malice, knowledge, and intent may be alleged generally. La.C.C.P. art. 856. Furthermore, the purpose of the exception of no cause of action is to determine the sufficiency of the petition and is triable on the face of the papers. Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 444 So.2d 618 (La.1984). The merit of plaintiffs claim is to be determined after findings of fact upon motion for summary judgment or trial on the merits.

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

In re Carey, Byron; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 89-CA-0215; Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 18623.

Prior report: La.App., 550 So.2d 949.

Writ granted. The judgments of the district and court of appeal granting UMC’s exception of no cause of action are reversed. Plaintiff’s petition asserts that defendants intended to injure him or knew or should have known that his injury was substantially certain to follow. Conditions of the mind such as malice, knowledge, and intent may be alleged generally. La.C.C.P. art. 856. Furthermore, the purpose of the exception of no cause of action is to determine the sufficiency of the petition and is triable on the face of the papers. Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 444 So.2d 618 (La.1984). The merit of plaintiffs claim is to be determined after findings of fact upon motion for summary judgment or trial on the merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

553 So. 2d 472, 1989 WL 149605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-v-umc-united-mechanical-contractors-la-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack