Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2000

Capitol House Preservation Co. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · Decided February 11, 2000 · Classification, Indicates, Intent, Lemmon, Limitation, Necessity, Peremptive, Period, Prescription, Rev, Since, Stat, That, Used, Victory, Word

754 So. 2d 937; 2000 La. LEXIS 463 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Opinion of the Court

*938In re Argosy Gaming Company; Catfish Queen Prtn.; Argosy of Louisiana Inc.;— Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 418,525; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 98 CA 2216.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., not on panel; LEMMON, J., concurs, not necessarily agreeing that the period of limitation in La.Rev.Stat. 51:1409 E is peremptive, especially since the Legislative expressly used the word “prescription” and nothing indicates an intent or a necessity for peremptive classification.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.