neutral
Cited (no substantive treatment)
0.1 score
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Samuel B. CARRUTH, and his wife, Frances Reed Carruth
v.
GOULD, INC., also known as ITE-Gould, and its insurer, John Doe Insurance Company Jack Stanley, Jerrell Price, and other executive officers and employees of/and their insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company, Texas-Connecticut Petroleum, Inc., and its insurer, ABC Insurance Company, Lambert Electric, Inc., and its insurer, XYZ Insurance Company G.H.R. ENERGY CORP., Formerly Good Hope Refineries v. GOULD, INC., a/k/a ITE-Gould, ITE Imperial Corporation and ITE, Inc., New Orleans, Electric Supply, Inc., (formerly New Orleans Armiture Company) a Division of National Electric Coil and a Subsidiary of McGraw-Edison, Inc., Lambert Electric Company, a/k/a Lambert Electric, Inc., Southeastern Industrial Contracting, Inc. and Control Systems, a Department of the National Electric Coil Division of McGraw-Edison Company
v.
GOULD, INC., also known as ITE-Gould, and its insurer, John Doe Insurance Company Jack Stanley, Jerrell Price, and other executive officers and employees of/and their insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company, Texas-Connecticut Petroleum, Inc., and its insurer, ABC Insurance Company, Lambert Electric, Inc., and its insurer, XYZ Insurance Company G.H.R. ENERGY CORP., Formerly Good Hope Refineries v. GOULD, INC., a/k/a ITE-Gould, ITE Imperial Corporation and ITE, Inc., New Orleans, Electric Supply, Inc., (formerly New Orleans Armiture Company) a Division of National Electric Coil and a Subsidiary of McGraw-Edison, Inc., Lambert Electric Company, a/k/a Lambert Electric, Inc., Southeastern Industrial Contracting, Inc. and Control Systems, a Department of the National Electric Coil Division of McGraw-Edison Company
No. 83-CC-1976.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sep 16, 1983.
Published
In re Gould, Inc., applying for writ of certiorari and/or review and mandamus. Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court. Nos. 273-954 c/w 248-276. Parish of Jefferson, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. No. 83-C-635.
Denied.