Daniel J. Saloom v. State of Louisiana, Dotd

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

21-666

DANIEL J. SALOOM, ET AL.

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT

**********

ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2018-4974
HONORABLE DAVID M. SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Van H. Kyzar, and Charles G. Fitzgerald,
Judges.

REMANDED.

Lawrence E. Marino
Cearley W. Fontenot
Daniel J. Phillips
Oats & Marino
A Partnership of Professional Corporations
100 East Vermilion Street, Suite 400
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501
(337) 233-1100
Counsel for Defendant-Applicant,
State of Louisiana, Department of
Transportation and Development

Andrew G. Barry
Cheryl McKinney
State of Louisiana, DOTD
Post Office Box 94245
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9245
(225) 242-4659
Counsel for Defendant-Applicant,
State of Louisiana, Department of
Transportation and Development

Gerald C. deLaunay
Perrin Landry deLaunay
Post Office Box 53597
Lafayette, Louisiana 70505
(337) 237-8500
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Respondents,
Daniel J. Saloom, et al.

FITZGERALD, Judge.

This matter is before us on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court. See

Saloom v. Department of Transportation and Development, 22-0596 (La. 6/22/22),

___ So.3d ___. In that case, the supreme court specifically ruled as follows:

The court of appeal judgment reversing the trial court’s judgment
and granting the state’s motion for summary judgment is vacated.
Because the court of appeal did not consider the state’s remaining
arguments in support of its motion and in opposition to plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment, we remand the matter to the court of
appeal for consideration of the state’s remaining assignments of error.

Id. at 7.

This case was previously before us on an application for supervisory writ filed

by the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development.

Importantly, the writ application sought review of only one ruling; namely, the trial

court’s denial of the state’s cross-motion for summary judgment. And the two

assignments of error asserted by the state were premised on estoppel by deed.

In our previous opinion, we granted the writ application, reversed the ruling

of the trial court, entered summary judgment in favor of the state, and dismissed the

plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. See Saloom v. Department of Transportation and

Development, 21-666 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/16/22), 350 So.3d 505. In doing so, we

thoroughly addressed estoppel by deed. And again, no other assignments, issues, or

arguments were before this court for review.

The supreme court, in turn, vacated our judgment, reinstated the trial court’s

ruling, and remanded the case back to us with the above instructions. However,

because we previously considered all assignments, issues, and arguments that were

asserted by the state, we now remand the case to the trial court for further

proceedings.

DECREE

For the above reasons, this matter is remanded to the trial court for further

proceedings.

REMANDED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3

2