Hemstad v. Dakin

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Hemstad v. Dakin, 182 So. 3d 22 (La. 2015)
2015 La. LEXIS 2139; 2015 WL 5944538
Additionally, Clark, Crichton, Grant, Guidry, Reasons, Weimer

Hemstad v. Dakin

Opinion of the Court

In re M. Christakis Co., L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 717-114 C/W 715-260; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 15-C-267.

| denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant. GUIDRY, J., would grant. CLARK, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Concurring Opinion

CLARK, J.,

additionally concurring.

hi concur in the denial of the writ. Defendants have an adequate remedy-on appeal, when the appellate courts will have fully developed record to review.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Concurring Opinion

CRICHTON, J.,

additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

[ t While I agree that there are genuine issues of material fact, in my view, this is a very close case. In the event of an adverse judgment at trial, defendants will have an adequate remedy on appeal, at *23which time the appellate court will have the benefit of a fully developed record.

Reference

Full Case Name
Cristen HEMSTAD v. Francis DAKIN and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, M. Christakis Co., L.L.C.
Status
Published