March 23, 2001 - Opinions - Louisiana Supreme Court

<div>
                         <div class="content">
                             <div class="bcrumb">
                                 <ol class="row breadcrumb offprint">
                                     <li><a href="/">Home</a></li>
                                             <li><a href="CourtActions/2001">Court Actions</a></li>

<li class="active">
March 23, 2001 
                                             </li>

</ol>

</div>
                         </div>

<div id="mainbodycontent" class="col col-md-12 mainbodycontent" style="margin-top:-10px;">                    
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="90%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td valign="top" width="63%">FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE</td><td valign="top" width="37%"><div align="right">NEWS RELEASE #026</div></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td valign="top">FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA</td><td valign="top">&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table><p>&nbsp;</p><div style="text-align:justify;"><p>The Opinions handed down on the&nbsp;<span style="text-decoration:underline;"><strong>23th day of March, 2001</strong></span>, are as follows:&nbsp;      </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="text-decoration:underline;"><strong>BY KIMBALL, J.</strong></span><strong>:</strong></p><p><a href="/opinions/2001/00c1372.opn.pdf">2000-C- 1372 c/w 2000-C- 1387 c/w 2000-C- 1440 DON PERKINS, ET AL. v. ENTERGY CORPORATION, ET AL. C/W JOSEPH BUJOL, III ET AL. v. ENTERGY CORPORATION, ET AL. C/W ROBERT HRACEK, C/W ET AL. v. ENTERGY CORPORATION, ET AL.</a> (Parish of Iberville)<br />While we, too, sympathize with the plaintiffs, we agree with the court of appeal that the record does not include a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's finding that the electrical fault was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiffs' injuries. We further agree that the trial court was clearly wrong in concluding that the plaintiffs established their cause-in-fact case by a preponderance of the evidence. Because there is no factual causation in this case, our inquiry is over. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed.</p><p>James C. Gulotta, Justice Pro Tempore, sitting for Associate Justice Harry T. Lemmon.</p><p><a href="/opinions/2001/00c1372.bjj.pdf">JOHNSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons</a>.<br /><a href="/opinions/2001/00c1372.jtk.pdf">KNOLL, J., dissents and assigns reasons.</a> </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="text-decoration:underline;"><strong>BY VICTORY, J.</strong></span><strong>:</strong></p><p><a href="/opinions/2001/00cc1750.opn.pdf">2000-CC- 1750 CHRISTA DUPLANTIS v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF ETHICS </a>(Louisiana Board of Ethics)<br />C/W<br />2000-CC- 1956 BREAZEALE, SACHSE, &amp; WILSON, L.L.P. (Louisiana Board of Ethics)<br />For the reasons stated above, in Duplantis v. Louisiana Board of Ethics, we vacate the ruling of the First Circuit in 00-293 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/18/00) which reversed the Board's advisory opinion. In Breazeale, Sachse, &amp; Wilson, L.L.P. v. Louisiana Board of Ethics, we affirm the judgment of the First Circuit denying the writ, but on different grounds. The writ should have been denied because the First Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review advisory opinions of the Board.<br /><strong>Duplantis v. Louisiana Board of Ethics</strong>&nbsp;, 00-1750---VACATED;<br /><strong>Breazeale, Sachse, &amp; Wilson</strong>&nbsp;, 00-1956---AFFIRMED.</p><p><a href="/opinions/2001/00cc1750.pfc.pdf">CALOGERO, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br /></a>LEMMON, J., concurs and will assign reasons.<br /><a href="/opinions/2001/00cc1750.jtk.pdf">KNOLL, J., dissents and assigns reasons.</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p></div>
                </div>

</div>