87-C-1945 Precedential Processed

Pogo Producing Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 16, 1987 · 514 So. 2d 1164

Cited by

Distinguished in 1

Deerfield Hunting Club, Inc. v. Swayze Plantation, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Deer Field Hunting Club v. Swayze Plantat. 998 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Metro Ambulance Serv. v. Med Life Emergency 900 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Mary Moe, LLC v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics 875 So. 2d 22 La. 2004
Parish of Jefferson v. Lafreniere Park Foundation 716 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Yokem Toyota, Inc. v. Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission 589 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Hibernia National Bank v. Blossman 583 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
SREF Bon Marche Co. v. DH Holmes Co. 572 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Dunbar v. Williams 554 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Leday v. Aztec Corp. 544 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Pogo Producing Co. v. Sea Robin Pipeline Co. 493 So. 2d 909

Opinion text

514 So.2d 1164 (1987) POGO PRODUCING COMPANY v. UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY. No. 87-C-1945. Supreme Court of Louisiana. November 16, 1987. PER CURIAM. The application is denied. The decision of the court of appeal, which simply upholds the trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction, contemplates a future trial on the merits of the demand for a final injunction and the demand by amended petition for specific performance. The intermediate court's rejection of Pogo's appeal "solely on the issue of irreparable harm" did not decide the demands for a final mandatory injunction and for specific performance, since those demands have not yet been tried. DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ. DENNIS, J., would grant and assigns reasons. DENNIS, Justice, assigning reasons for granting. The trial court erred manifestly in finding that the plaintiff will not be irreparably injured by the defendant's refusal to perform the contract. The plaintiff proved that the severe continuing damage to its reserves can only be assessed, if at all, by highly speculative methods in the distant future after the wells are exhausted. Even then, the imprecision of such estimates will render any damage award suspect. See Pogo Producing v. United Gas, 493 So.2d 909 (La.App. 3d Cir.1986). Moreover, I would grant the writ to consider whether there is warrant in the record and a basis in law for determining whether plaintiff is entitled to the substantive right of specific performance that it seeks. Although plaintiff sought to employ the procedural device of injunction, the underlying substantive right of specific performance of a contract it asserted does not require proof of irreparrable damage for its enforcement. Because the parties in fact have thoroughly tried all of the factual issues relevant to the ultimate question of specific performance, the ends of justice will not be served by requiring them to relitigate the issue again.