Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Davis v. Cheema, Inc.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided May 22, 2015No. 2014-CA-1316Published
1ConcurrenceLove, J.
Li concur with the results reached by the majority. However, I write separately to emphasize the discretionary nature of the law of the case doctrine at the appellate court level.
The law of the case doctrine “is a discretionary guide that will not be applied inflexibly.” KeyClick Outsourcing, Inc. v. Ochsner Health Plan, Inc., 11-0598, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/14/12), 89 So.3d 1207, 1212. See also Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 09-0461, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/23/10), 36 So.3d 1046, 1050. On appeal, we are permitted to disregard this doctrine if a “palpable error” is discovered in our first decision.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bank One, Nat. Ass'n v. VeltenLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2005
- Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2010
- First Bank and Trust v. DuwellLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2011
- Keyclick Outsourcing, Inc. v. Ochsner Health Plan, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2012
- First Federal Sav. & Loan of Warner Robins, Georgia v. DisiereLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.