Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case of In re Hine Associates, various parties, including Marjorie P. Trowbridge, Pauline P. Bell, and several others, applied for writs of prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, or supervisory review concerning a decision from the 16th Judicial District Court in Iberia Parish (Case No. 62054). The application was ultimately denied by the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit (No. CW87-0650). However, Justices Dixon, Watson, and Lemmon expressed a dissenting opinion, indicating they would have granted the writ.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application for Writs of Prohibition, Mandamus, Certiorari, or Supervisory Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Several parties sought writs challenging a decision from the 16th Judicial District Court, but their application was denied by the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
Reasoning: In the case of In re Hine Associates, various parties, including Marjorie P. Trowbridge, Pauline P. Bell, and several others, applied for writs of prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, or supervisory review concerning a decision from the 16th Judicial District Court in Iberia Parish (Case No. 62054). The application was ultimately denied by the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit (No. CW87-0650).
Dissenting Opinions in Appellate Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justices Dixon, Watson, and Lemmon expressed dissent, indicating their disagreement with the majority's decision to deny the writ.
Reasoning: However, Justices Dixon, Watson, and Lemmon expressed a dissenting opinion, indicating they would have granted the writ.