IN RE: THE MARSHALL MUSEUM AND LIBRARY, A LOUISIANA CHARITABLE TRUST
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 08-389 IN RE: THE MARSHALL MUSEUM AND LIBRARY, A LOUISIANA CHARITABLE TRUST ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 97-7605 HONORABLE KENT SAVOIE, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** JIMMIE C. PETERS JUDGE ********** Court composed of John D. Saunders, Jimmie C. Peters, and Michael G. Sullivan, Judges. MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED. James Gibson Charles Kreamer Allen & Gooch Post Office Drawer 3769 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 291-1300 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Dr. Stephen Cook John Stanton Bradford John J. Simpson Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock Post Office Box 2900 Lake Charles, LA 70602-2900 (337) 436-9491 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Lawter & Lawter Gabriel, Herman & Peretz, L.L.P. Jack W. Lawter, Jr. Dianne W. Lawter Avi Peretz Dean Herman Alan Gabriel James Watston Roddy & Watson Post Office Box 1743 Lake Charles, LA 70602-1743 (337) 474-7446 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: Finley Hilliard Kenneth Farrar Jeffrey W. Chambers Ware, Snow, Fogel & Jackson, L.L.P. America Tower, 42nd floor 2929 Allen Parkway Houston, TX 77019 (713) 659-6400 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Estate of E. Pierce Marshall Gregory Jesse Logan The Logan Law Firm Post Office Box 3424 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 232-6210 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Estate of E. Pierce Marshall Peter J. Butler, Jr. Breazeale, Sachse, & Wilson, L.L.P. Suite 1500, 909 Poydras St. New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 619-1800 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Estate of E. Pierce Marshall PETERS, Judge. The Plaintiff/Appellee, Dr. Stephen Cook, individually and as Trustee of the Marshall Museum and Library, a Louisiana Trust, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory order. For the reasons assigned below, we grant the motion to dismiss. This litigation arises out of conflicting claims to the proper distribution of the estate of J. Howard Marshall. In the course of these proceedings, the Defendants/Appellants filed numerous declinatory and dilatory exceptions. The Appellee filed a motion to strike and/or motion in limine. Following a hearing on these pleadings, the trial court granted the Appellants exception of prematurity on the issue of defamation and dismissed the Appellee s claim for defamation without prejudice. The trial court also granted the Appellants exception of no cause of action on the claim of tortious interference with a contract and dismissed the Appellee s claim without prejudice. As to all other claims, the trial court denied the exception of prematurity and the exception of no cause, and also denied the remaining exceptions filed by the Appellants. Further, the trial court granted the Appellee s motion to strike/limine seeking to have an exhibit of the Appellants memorandum stricken from the record. The Appellants filed their motion for appeal on August 29, 2007. On March 3, 2008, the trial court designated the judgment at issue as final pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B). The record in this appeal was lodged on April 14, 2008. The only adverse rulings, as to the Appellants, contained in the appealed judgment are interlocutory rulings which denied the Appellants exceptions and which granted the Appellee s motion to strike/limine. Although the 1 judgment does contain two rulings that could be appealed, these rulings are partial grants of the Appellants exceptions and are, therefore, rulings in the Appellants favor. Moreover, in their opposition filed in response to this motion to dismiss, the Appellants did not assert that they were appealing any issues pertaining to these arguably appealable rulings. Therefore, the only issues remaining about which the Appellants could be complaining are interlocutory rulings. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1841. In their response to the motion to dismiss, the Appellants ask, if this court should find this appeal improper, that this court convert this appeal to an application for supervisory writs. Although the judgment sought to be appealed by Appellants is interlocutory, we find that this appeal cannot be converted to a writ application. The Appellants motion for appeal was filed too late to be considered a timely filed notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ pursuant to Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 4 3. Therefore, we hereby dismiss the instant appeal at Appellants cost. MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED. This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rules 2-16.2 and 2-16.3, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal. 2
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.
