Legal Opinion · Dissent
Clary v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided November 23, 2016No. 16-168Published
1Dissent
CONERY, J„
dissents and assigns reasons.
Iil would reverse the trial court’s ruling denying the Defendants’ peremptory exception of no cause of action pursuant to the Louisiana Antitrust Statute, La.R.S. 51:122. Further, I would find that trial court’s judgment denying the Defendants’ peremptory exception of no cause of action seeking to dismiss the Clarys’ claim pursuant to La.R.S. 51:1406, the LUTPA claim, is not a final judgment, but instead an interlocutory judgment which is not . subject to appeal. La.Code Civ.P art. 2083.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
As the majority comprehensively…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1993
- La. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1986
- Jefferson v. Chevron USA Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1998
- Plaquemine Marine, Inc. v. Mercury MarineLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2003
- SOUTHERN TOOL & SUPPLY v. Beerman Precision, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2003
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.