Whitnell v. Silverman

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Whitnell v. Silverman

598 So. 2d 345, 1992 La. LEXIS 1713

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 8, 1992

DocketNo. 92-C-0619

StatusPublished

This text of 598 So. 2d 345 (Whitnell v. Silverman) 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

Whitnell v. Silverman, 598 So. 2d 345, 1992 La. LEXIS 1713 (La. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Whitnell, Lorraine S.; Whitnell, James;—Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 91CA-0426; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “L”, No. 86-17054.

Prior report: La.App., 592 So.2d 429.

Granted in part and denied in part: (1) granted for the purpose of remanding the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing and ruling on whether R.S. 9:5628 is unconstitutional. (2) Otherwise denied. The trial court correctly concluded that the doctor did not prevent timely filing of plaintiff’s action intentionally, fraudulently, or by ill practice. It is so ordered.

CALOGERO, C.J., concurs in remand action (1), but dissents from denial of balance of relator’s application (2). WATSON and LEMMON, JJ., concur in the order but would prefer to grant on all issues. MARCUS and COLE, JJ., would deny the writ.

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

In re Whitnell, Lorraine S.; Whitnell, James;—Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 91CA-0426; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “L”, No. 86-17054.

Prior report: La.App., 592 So.2d 429.

Granted in part and denied in part: (1) granted for the purpose of remanding the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing and ruling on whether R.S. 9:5628 is unconstitutional. (2) Otherwise denied. The trial court correctly concluded that the doctor did not prevent timely filing of plaintiff’s action intentionally, fraudulently, or by ill practice. It is so ordered.

CALOGERO, C.J., concurs in remand action (1), but dissents from denial of balance of relator’s application (2). WATSON and LEMMON, JJ., concur in the order but would prefer to grant on all issues. MARCUS and COLE, JJ., would deny the writ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 So. 2d 345, 1992 La. LEXIS 1713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitnell-v-silverman-la-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack