SUCCESSION OF MRS. MARIE LOUISE SCHMIDT LANDRY DE FRENEUSE, WIDOW BY FIRST MARRIAGE OF COL. HUGHES JULES DE LA VERGNE, AND WIDOW BY SECOND MARRIAGE OF HENRY J. LANDRY DE FRENEUSE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUCCESSION OF MRS. MARIE LOUISE SCHMIDT LANDRY DE FRENEUSE, WIDOW BY FIRST MARRIAGE OF COL. HUGHES JULES DE LA VERGNE, AND WIDOW BY SECOND MARRIAGE OF HENRY J. LANDRY DE FRENEUSE * NO. 2002-CA-1807 * COURT OF APPEAL * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 387-537, DIVISION “F” Honorable Yada Magee, Judge ****** Judge Terri F. Love ****** (Court composed of Judge Steven R. Plotkin, Judge Miriam G. Waltzer, Judge Terri F. Love) ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR INTERVENTION Ashley L. Belleau Pierre V. Miller II PATRICK, MILLER, BURNSIDE & BELLEAU, L.L.C. 400 Poydras Street Texaco Center, Suite 1680 New Orleans, LA 70130 -andDavid R. M. Williams 3813 North Causeway Boulevard Suite 200 Metairie, LA 70002 COUNSEL FOR SCHMIDT DE LA VERGNE, ET AL. George F. Riess LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE F. RIESS, LLC 938 Lafayette Street Suite 100 New Orleans, LA 701131067 COUNSEL FOR HUGHES DE LA VERGNE AND CHARLES E. DE LA VERGNE, JR. David S. Bland Julie M. Araujo KING, LeBLANC & BLAND, L.L.P. 201 St. Charles Avenue Suite 3800 New Orleans, LA 70170 COUNSEL FOR KATHERINE RAULT, ET AL. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR INTERVENTION DENIED A judgment that determines the merits in whole or in part is a final judgment. La. C.C.P. art. 1841. A final judgment may be rendered by either a trial court or an appellate court, and a judgment by an appellate court that decides the merits of the case is a final judgment, regardless of whether the case reached the appellate court on appeal or on supervisory writs. Tolis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ, 95-1529 p. 2 (La. 10/16/95), 660 So.2d 1206. In this case this Court addressed the merits of the appellants’ claims in writ 2002-C-0104. When the Supreme Court denied the appellants’ writ, the judgment of this Court became final. La. C.C.P. 2166(D). Therefore appellants’ instant appeal is barred by res judicata and is dismissed. As for the motions for leave to file a petition for intervention by Charles E. de la Vergne, Jr. and Hughes de la Vergne, trustees when this Court denied the writ but now attempting to intervene as beneficiaries, the motions are denied as one may intervene only in a “pending action,” and final judgment has been rendered in this case. See La. C.C.P. art. 1091. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR INTERVENTION DENIED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
