Johnny Covington v. Clark Sand Co., Inc., Et Al.
Johnny Covington v. Clark Sand Co., Inc., Et Al., No. 2023-CC-00496 (La. June 26, 2023).
The holding in the court’s own words
Based on the information provided in plaintiff’s brief, we conclude the evidence submitted by plaintiff in opposition to Empire’s motion for summary judgment is sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Opinion text
Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 26, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
JOHNNY COVINGTON
VS.
CLARK SAND CO., INC., ET AL.
No. 2023-CC-00496
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Empire Abrasive Equipment Company, LP - Applicant Defendant; Applying
For Supervisory Writ, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court
Number(s) 649436, Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2022 CW 1204;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 26, 2023
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
Crain, J., concurs.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
06/26/2023 "See News Release 030 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2023-CC-00496
J
OHNNY COVINGTON
VS.
CLARK SAND CO., INC.; CLEMCO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION F/K/A
CLEMCO SERVICES CORP.; DEPENDABLE ABRASIVES, INC.; E.D.
BULLARD COMPANY; EMPIRE ABRASIVE EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
L.P.; LEHIGH HANSON, INC. (A SUBSIDIARY OF
HEIDELBERGCEMENT GROUP) F/K/A HANSON AGGREGATES, INC.
F/K/A HANSON AGGREGATES CENTRAL, INC. F/K/A PIONEER
SOUTH CENTRAL, INC. F/K/A PIONEER CONCRETE OF TEXAS, INC.;
INGERSOLL-RAND CORPORATION; LEROI COMPRESSOR A/K/A
ROTARY COMPRESSION TECHNOLOGIES; 3M COMPANY;
RUEMELIN MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SANSTORM INC.; BOB
SCHMIDT MANUFACTURING, INC.; SOUTHERN SILICA OF
LOUISIANA, INC.; SPECIALTY SAND COMPANY; SULLAIR
COMPRESSOR CORPORATION; AND TXI OPRATIONS, L.P
O
n Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge
PER CURIAM
E
mpire Abrasive Equip ment Company, L.P. (“Empire”) filed a writ
application seeking review of the denial of its motion for summary judgment. We
ordered briefing in this matter pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(H). Both parties
filed briefs pursuant to that order.1
Having reviewed the briefs, we find Empire’s original application to this court
did not include a complete discussion of the evidence produced by plaintiff in
opposition to Empire’s motion for summary judgment. Based on the information
provided in plaintiff’s brief, we conclude the evidence submitted by plaintiff in
opposition to Empire’s motion for summary judgment is sufficient to raise genuine
issues of material fact.
Accordingly, the writ is denied.
1 Along with his brief, plaintiff filed a motion to exceed page limits. That motion is granted.
06/26/23