“law of the case” doctrine is a “discretionary guide” and “cannot supplant the Code of Civil Procedure provision which clearly permits a reconsideration of the overruling of peremptory exceptions”
How later courts described this case
- “law of the case” doctrine is a “discretionary guide” and “cannot supplant the Code of Civil Procedure provision which clearly permits a reconsideration of the overruling of peremptory exceptions”
- but also noting that federal judges do address certain issues prior to trial, such a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
- "[I]nterlocutory orders overruling... peremptory exceptions cannot be binding upon the trial court when it timelybut laterdetermines error of judgment based upon the matter as submitted or upon subsequent disclosures in the record which require a contrary holding."
- noting the traditional legal distinction between a “right” and a “remedy”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Williams v. Centerpoint Energy Res. Corp., 264 So. 3d 1196 (2019)
" Second, Babineaux is inapposite.
The opinion
DIXON, Justice
(concurring).
I fully concur, except that I would not suggest that Arnold had more than six months (C.C. 191) from the date he testified to bring an action en desaveu. If he did not at that time actually know of the birth of the child, the circumstances were such that he should have been placed on notice, and should have known.