Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. State ex rel. Division of Administration

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. State ex rel. Division of Administration

604 So. 2d 714, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 2072, 1992 WL 163555

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 29, 1992

DocketNo. 91 CW 1833

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 604 So. 2d 714 (Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. State ex rel. Division of Administration) 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

Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. State ex rel. Division of Administration, 604 So. 2d 714, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 2072, 1992 WL 163555 (La. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

CRAIN, Judge.

The legal issue presented in this case is identical to that presented in Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. State, Division of Administration, 604 So.2d 710 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1992), and Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. State, Division of Administration, 604 So.2d 714 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992), in which we have this date rendered opinions reversing the judgment of the trial court and sustaining the exception of prematurity raised by relators.

Relator in the ease before us is International Business Machines Corporation (IBM).

For the reasons assigned in Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. State, Division of Administration, 604 So.2d 710 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992), we reverse the judgment of the trial court overruling IBM’s objection of prematurity. PCC must exhaust all prescribed administrative remedies before seeking judicial review or judicial determination of the issues raised regarding the validity of the contract awarded to IBM. This matter is remanded for action consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SHORTESS, J., concurs with reasons.

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