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.

Harkins v. Gauthe

Citations: 675 So. 2d 1122; 1996 La. LEXIS 1956; 1996 WL 366164Docket: No. 96-CC-0988

Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana; June 28, 1996; Louisiana; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case "In re Gauthe, Gilbert, Father," a petition for a writ of certiorari and/or review, including supervisory and/or remedial writs, was filed by Pacific Employers Insurance Company and Houston General Insurance Company against the defendants in the 15th Judicial District Court, Lafayette Parish (Case No. 93-3086 1A). The Court of Appeal, Third Circuit (No. CW95-0769), denied the application. The ruling allows the parties to raise the issue again on appeal if there is an adverse judgment. Chief Justice Calogero and Justice Victory expressed a dissenting opinion, indicating they would have granted the writ, while Justice Bleich was not part of the panel.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dissenting Opinions in Writ Decisions

Application: Chief Justice Calogero and Justice Victory dissented from the majority's decision to deny the writ, which suggests a disagreement with the denial and a preference to consider the merits of the writ.

Reasoning: Chief Justice Calogero and Justice Victory expressed a dissenting opinion, indicating they would have granted the writ.

Participation of Justices in Panel Decisions

Application: Justice Bleich did not participate in the decision, which reflects procedural aspects of judicial participation in panel decisions.

Reasoning: Justice Bleich was not part of the panel.

Writ of Certiorari and Supervisory Writs

Application: The Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, denied the petition for a writ of certiorari and/or supervisory writs filed by the insurance companies, indicating that the matter could be revisited on appeal following an adverse judgment.

Reasoning: The Court of Appeal, Third Circuit (No. CW95-0769), denied the application. The ruling allows the parties to raise the issue again on appeal if there is an adverse judgment.