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

Supreme Court of Louisiana February 11, 2000

Capitol House Preservation Co. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc., 754 So. 2d 937 (La. 2000)

2000 La. LEXIS 463

Classification, Indicates, Intent, Lemmon, Limitation, Necessity, Peremptive, Period, Prescription, Rev, Since, Stat, That, Used, Victory, Word

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.

Reference

Full Case Name: CAPITOL HOUSE PRESERVATION COMPANY, L.L.C. v. PERRYMAN CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED Mr. M. Ray Perryman XYZ Insurance Company and TUV Insurance Company
Status: Published