Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. Allen
Also decided on this docket: La., September 15, 2000 767 So. 2d 699
Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. Allen, 777 So. 2d 472 (La. 2001).
The holding in the court’s own words
After hearing oral argument and reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the judgment below does not require the exercise of our supervisory authority.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Larry F. Mitchell v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development 219 So. 3d 1061 La. 2017
- Hood v. Will Transport 917 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
- Wood v. Brian Harris Autoplex 923 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
- Taylor v. Tommie's Gaming 902 So. 2d 380 La. 2005
- 84 Lumber Company v. Hon. Allen M. Babineaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
- 84 Lumber Co. v. Babineaux 886 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
- Taylor v. Tommie's Gaming 878 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
- Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. Allen 867 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
- Dukes v. Sherwood Acres Apartments 835 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
- Allen v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 830 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
- Hull v. Fluker Farms 787 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
Opinion text
JjPER CURIAM Upon application of James Greg Allen, we granted certiorari in this case. Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. James Greg Allen, 2000-1520 (La.9/15/00), 767 So.2d 699 . After hearing oral argument and reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the judgment below does not require the exercise of our supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of September 15, 2000, as improvidently granted, and deny Allen’s application. CALOGERO, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons. KIMBALL, J., dissents for reasons assigned by CALOGERO, C.J. LEMMON, J., dissents.