You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Daigle v. Mata

Citations: 532 So. 2d 1387; 1988 La. LEXIS 2538; 1988 WL 120097Docket: No. 88-C-2143

Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana; November 10, 1988; Louisiana; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The application for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review by Virginia Wilson Daigle and other plaintiffs was presented to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, concerning case number 88-CA-0083 from the 24th Judicial District Court, Division G, Jefferson Parish, with reference number 323-816. The court denied the application. Justices Marcus and Lemmon concurred with the denial. The Court of Appeal upheld that the judgment in question was not a partial final judgment as permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure, citing the precedent set in Cavalier v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 530 So.2d 73 (La. 1988).

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Application

Application: The court denied the application for review, and Justices Marcus and Lemmon concurred with this decision.

Reasoning: The court denied the application. Justices Marcus and Lemmon concurred with the denial.

Final Judgment Requirement

Application: The Court of Appeal determined that the judgment was not a partial final judgment as required by the Code of Civil Procedure, aligning with established legal precedent.

Reasoning: The Court of Appeal upheld that the judgment in question was not a partial final judgment as permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure, citing the precedent set in Cavalier v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 530 So.2d 73 (La. 1988).

Writ of Certiorari and/or Review

Application: The Court of Appeal reviewed the application for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review by Virginia Wilson Daigle and other plaintiffs but ultimately denied it.

Reasoning: The application for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review by Virginia Wilson Daigle and other plaintiffs was presented to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit.