Young v. Knapp

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Young v. Knapp

900 So. 2d 839, 2005 La. LEXIS 1258, 2005 WL 995356

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 29, 2005

DocketNo. 2005-C-0269

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 900 So. 2d 839 (Young v. Knapp) 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

Young v. Knapp, 900 So. 2d 839, 2005 La. LEXIS 1258, 2005 WL 995356 (La. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted. For the purpose of determining the issues raised by the exception of no cause of action, we are bound to accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the petition, not conclusions of law. Plaintiffs petition fails to set forth facts sufficient to allege a cause of action for malicious prosecution. Because plaintiff was previously allowed to amend his petition in an attempt to state a cause of action by order of the court of appeal,¹ and we now find the amended petition fails to state a cause of action, remand for further amendment would serve no purpose. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the district court is reinstated.

CALOGERO, C.J., and KIMBALL, J., dissent and would grant and docket.

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

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted. For the purpose of determining the issues raised by the exception of no cause of action, we are bound to accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the petition, not conclusions of law. Plaintiffs petition fails to set forth facts sufficient to allege a cause of action for malicious prosecution. Because plaintiff was previously allowed to amend his petition in an attempt to state a cause of action by order of the court of appeal,¹ and we now find the amended petition fails to state a cause of action, remand for further amendment would serve no purpose. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the district court is reinstated.

CALOGERO, C.J., and KIMBALL, J., dissent and would grant and docket.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

900 So. 2d 839, 2005 La. LEXIS 1258, 2005 WL 995356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-knapp-la-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack