FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE

NEWS RELEASE # 054

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

On the 18th day of June, 1999 , the following action was taken by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the case(s) listed below:

REQUEST FOR STAY DENIED:

99-CC- 1790 J. JUDE QUEBEDEAUX AND WENDY QUEBEDEAUX v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY AND JOHN DANDRIDGE (Parish of Iberville)

CALOGERO, C.J. - not on panel.

On the 21st day of June, 1999 , the following action was taken by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the case(s) listed below:

WRITS DENIED :

99-CC- 1805 FRANK LOCICERO v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND MELINDA CARNEY (Parish of Orleans)

KIMBALL, J. - not on panel.

KNOLL, J. - concurs in the denial; however, in the event of an adverse judgment, relator may re-raise on appeal.

99-CC- 1806 J. JUDE QUEBEDEAUX AND WENDY QUEBEDEAUX v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY AND JOHN DANDRIDGE (Parish of Iberville)

CALOGERO, C.J. - not on panel.

On the 22nd day of June, 1999 , the following action was taken by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the case(s) listed below:

WRIT GRANTED IN PART WITH ORDER / DENIED IN PART :

99-KK- 1817 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. SCOTT WILKINSON (Parish of Jefferson)

LEMMON, J. - dissents. This Court should almost never grant a writ peremptorily without affording respondent an opportunity to respond. This case presents no unusual circumstances that warrant deviation from this normal procedure.

KNOLL, J. - not on panel.

APPLICATION WITHDRAWN ON RELATOR'S MOTION :

99-KD- 1763 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. KEITH DISACK (Parish of Orleans)

REHEARING DENIED:

99-KK- 1817 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. SCOTT WILKINSON (Parish of Jefferson)

TRAYLOR, J. - would grant rehearing.

KNOLL, J. - not on panel.

WRIT DENIED :

99-KK- 1819 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JOHN M. ALLEN (Parish of St. Tammany)

KIMBALL, J. - not on panel.

STAY DENIED:

99-C - 1774 BETTY ZAGAR v. WAL-MART STORES INC. (Parish of St.

Landry)

LEMMON & TRAYLOR, JJ. concur. Pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 2123, a suspensive appeal suspends the effect of the execution of a judgment. The stay order this defendant seeks is unnecessary because it timely filed a suspensive appeal and has posted the appropriate bond.