State ex rel. Guste v. Pickering
| Citation | 365 So.2d 943 |
| Decision Date | 27 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 10059,10059 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William J. GUSTE, Jr., Attorney General v. Kenneth E. PICKERING, the Louisiana Commissioner of Financial Institutions. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., John R. Flowers, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief Antitrust Section, and John H. Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, for plaintiff-appellant.
Reuter & Reuter, Arthur C. Reuter, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.
Sanders, Downing, Kean & Cazedessus, R. Gordon Kean, Jr. and Charles S. McCowan, Jr., Baton Rouge, for Central Appraisal Bureau, Inc.
Before SAMUEL, BEER and BAILES, JJ.
Ex relatione the Attorney General of Louisiana, plaintiff filed this suit against Kenneth E. Pickering, Louisiana Commissioner of Financial Institutions, seeking to enjoin the defendant from requiring (as alleged) that all state chartered savings and loan associations located in the New Orleans Metropolitan area exclusively use the appraisal services of Central Appraisal Bureau, Inc. (C.A.B.). Plaintiff's petition avers that required activity was in violation of LSA-R.S. 51:121 et seq., which prohibits monopolies and restraints of trade or commerce and provides for penalties for violation thereof.
Subsequent to the filing of the suit, plaintiff noticed the taking of the deposition of C.A.B. Defendant and C.A.B. then filed motions to quash the taking of that deposition. Following a hearing, there was judgment granting the motions to quash. Plaintiff has appealed from that judgment. Defendant has answered the appeal. In addition, this court issued an ex proprio motu rule ordering plaintiff to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on the apparent ground that the appeal had been taken from a nonappealable judgment, and plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss defendant's answer to the appeal.
The matter is not now before us on the merits. At issue at this time are only our rule to show cause and plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's answer.
Our concern regarding the nonappealability of the judgment appealed from was based on the fact that the judgment is interlocutory, for the reason that it does not determine the merits but only preliminary matters in the course of the action, 1 and as such may be appealed from only if it may cause irreparable injury. 2 On its face the trial court judgment apparently would not cause such irreparable injury as would result in it becoming an appealable judgment. 3
We now find we were in error in applying the general rule regarding appealable judgments to this case which comes under the sui generis statutory law relative to monopolies and restraints of trade or commerce contained in LSA-R.S. 51:121 et seq. A section of that statutory law, LSA-R.S. 51:135, provides:
Generally, the usual appeal not coming under the statute in suit brings to the appellate court the whole case or any part thereof which the appellant desires to have reviewed. Thus, interlocutory judgments are before the appellate court in the usual appeal, and errors in such judgments can be corrected following a hearing on the merits of the appeal. That is the basic reason why interlocutory judgments are not appealable unless they may cause irreparable injury. This reasoning does not apply in the instant case which is controlled by the above quoted LSA-R.S. 51:135. Under that section all interlocutory judgments are appealable unless "otherwise provided for" in the statute and in the absence of such an appeal all interlocutory judgments become final and "shall not be reopened on final appeal". We do not find that discovery is "otherwise provided for". Thus, our conclusion must be that the interlocutory judgment herein appealed from, although dealing only with discovery, need not cause irreparable injury in order to be appealable. It is appealable, regardless of the presence or absence of possible irreparable injury. Indeed, the appeal provided for in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bernard v. BFI Waste Serv., LLC
...state the relief requested, while an appeal usually seeks review of all parts of the judgment. State ex rel. Guste v. Pickering, 365 So.2d 943 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 366 So.2d 556 (La.1978); see also Grady v. Alfonso, 315 So.2d 832 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1975).Generally, an answer to an ap......
-
Bernard v. BFI Waste Serv., LLC
...state the relief requested, while an appeal usually seeks review of all parts of the judgment. State ex rel. Guste v. Pickering, 365 So.2d 943 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 366 So.2d 556 (La.1978) ; see also Grady v. Alfonso, 315 So.2d 832 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1975).Generally, an answer to an a......
-
Succession Poole v. Fuselier
...v. Bardwell, 482 So. 2d 685, 694 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1985), writ denied, 487 So. 2d 439 (La. 1986), citing State ex rel. Guste v. Pickering, 365 So. 2d 943 (La. App. 4th Cir.1978), writ denied, 366 So. 2d 556 (La. 1978). The only distinction between them is that La. C.C.P. art. 2133 requires t......
-
Acadiana Renal Physicians v. Our Lady of Lourdes Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc.
...of trade or commerce contained in La.R.S. 51:121 -152 constitutes sui generis statutory law. State ex rel. Guste v. Pickering , 365 So.2d 943 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied , 366 So.2d 556 (La.1978) ; see also State ex rel. Ieyoub v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Dover, Inc., 95-797 (La.App.......
-
Louisiana
...STAT. ANN. § 51:134. 252. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 51:135. 253. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 51:135. 254. See State ex rel. Guste v. Pickering, 365 So. 2d 943 (La. Ct. App. 1978), writ denied , 366 So. 2d 556 (La. 1978) (holding that § 51:135 applies to review of interlocutory judgment on motion to q......
-
Louisiana. Practice Text
...Ann. art. 928(B). 268. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:134. 269. Id . 270. Id . § 51:135. 271. Id . 272. See State ex rel. Guste v. Pickering, 365 So. 2d 943 (La. Ct. App. 1978), writ denied , 366 So. 2d 556 (La. 1978) (holding that § 51:135 applies to review of interlocutory judgment on motion to......