# Chicago Property Interests, L.L.C. v. Broussard

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · October 21, 2015 · 2015 La.App. 4 Cir. 0299

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4822750

## Case

- **Full name:** CHICAGO PROPERTY INTERESTS, L.L.C. and Zoe Aldige', Individually and On Behalf of those Similarly Situated v. Aaron BROUSSARD and Jefferson Parish
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** October 21, 2015
- **Citations:** 2015 La.App. 4 Cir. 0299; 177 So. 3d 1074; 2015 La. App. LEXIS 2081; 2015 WL 6388459
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tobias
- **Judges:** Landrieu, Lombard, Tobias
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4822750

## Opinion text

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), 172 So.3d 84, 88 ; 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. 10/31/07), 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4822750. Public record. Not legal advice.