CHICAGO PROPERTY INTERESTS, L.L.C. AND ZOE ALDIGE', INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED Vs. AARON BROUSSARD AND JEFFERSON PARISH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
CHICAGO PROPERTY INTERESTS, L.L.C. AND ZOE ALDIGE', INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED * NO. 2015-CA-0299 * COURT OF APPEAL * FOURTH CIRCUIT VERSUS * STATE OF LOUISIANA AARON BROUSSARD AND JEFFERSON PARISH * * ******* TOBIAS, J., CONCURS. I respectfully concur. I write separately to note that the denial of a writ application by an appellate court, regardless of any detailed reasons given for the denial, are of no precedential value. Lake Air Capital II, LLC v. Perera, 15-0038, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/13/15), __ So.3d __, __, 2015 WL 2245126; State v. Davis, 09-0438, p. 19 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/13/10), 30 So.3d 201, 211; Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 06-1592, p. 20 (La. App. 4 Cir. 13/07/07), 969 So.2d 755, 771; State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 4 n. 3 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, 795; St. Tammany Manor, Inc. v. Spartan Building Corp., 509 So.2d 424, 428 (La.1987); see also Cavalier v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. and Development, 08–0561, p. 5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/12/08), 994 So.2d 635, 640; Diamond B Const. Co., Inc. v. Department of Transp. and Development, 02– 0573 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/14/03), 845 So.2d 429, 434. Thus, although this court may have previously ruled in this case in a “writ denial” on the 33 C.F.R. § 208.10 issue, I find that the trial judge’s ruling on the matter was not an abuse of his discretion. The appellants have not demonstrated that the trial judge abused his discretion on any of the rulings at issue in this appeal and thus the judgment is not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.
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.
