Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Molero v. Bass

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided November 5, 1985No. CA 1430Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partArmstrong, Judge

I disagree with the majority’s decision regarding the trial court’s interpretation of the contract insofar as the Pointe a la Hache-Humble Oil leases are concerned.

Plaintiff claims that the trial court incorrectly applied the doctrine of ejusdem gen-eris, which requires that general terms following specific terms be construed as being of a character with the specific terms. See Borde v. New Orleans & G.N.R. Co., 140 So. 810 (La.App. 1st Cir.1932) and River Rouge Minerals Inc. v. Energy Resources of Minnesota, 331 So.2d 878 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1976). I do not agree with plaintiff’s argument. One…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. River Rouge Min., Inc. v. Energy Resources of Minn.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1976
  2. Borde v. New Orleans & G. N. R.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API