judge granted exception in Louisiana

2007On appeal, the Defendants contend that the trial judge erred in granting the peremptory exception of res judicata, because the exception is inapplicable to these facts. *34 They further contend that the first consent judgment is final and enforceable by summary proceeding, and that their right to enforce the judgment was not waived. 1) Res Judicata La.R.S. 13:4231 states: Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent: (1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all c

2003On appeal, Plaintiffs assert that the trial judge erred in granting the exception. *88 Plaintiffs contend that their petitions assert the discovery exception to the general one year prescriptive period for malpractice claims relative to survival actions, and that, under Campo v. Correct, 01-2707 (La.6/21/02), 828 So.2d 502 , a claim cannot prescribe on the face of the petition when the well pleaded facts allege that the tort was discovered after the act.

1994In reasons for judgment, the trial judge stated that Voss was entitled to notice of appraisal, citing by analogy, Citizens Savings and Loan Association v. Kinchen, 622 So.2d 662 (La.1993).

1983The court of appeal reversed, 418 So.2d 724 , finding that the dealings between this lessee and lessor relative to withholding the rent to make necessary wall repairs prevented the lessor from evicting the lessee.

1982The trial judge ruled, however, that the state could use those convictions in cross-examining defendant's character witnesses, but cautioned that the state would have to strictly adhere to the pertinent guidelines delineated in State v. Johnson, 389 So.2d 372 (La.1980).