Legal Opinion

Petranick v. White Consolidated Industries

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided September 30, 2003No. 03-CA-483PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

|,SUSAN M. CHEHARDY, Judge.

After trial, the judge granted plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict regarding liability and Motion for Additur. At the same time, the trial judge denied defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. Subsequently, all parties appealed. For the reasons which follow, the appeal is dismissed as premature for want of appebate jurisdiction and the case is remanded.

Plaintiffs, Mike and Karen Petranick, filed suit against defendants, Karl Steimle, his employer, White Consolidated Industries, and their insurer, Reliance National…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. STATE, THROUGH DOTD v. ScramuzzaLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1992
  2. Eubanks v. SalmonLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1999

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Clark v. MatthewsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2005
  2. Babin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API