Saloom v. State

Full title: DANIEL J. SALOOM, ET AL. v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF…

Court: Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit

Date published: Feb 8, 2023

No. 21-666 (La. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2023)

Opinion

21-666

02-08-2023

DANIEL J. SALOOM, ET AL. v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Lawrence E. Marino Cearley W. Fontenot Daniel J. Phillips Oats & Marino A Partnership of Professional Corporations Counsel for Defendant-Applicant, State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development Andrew G. Barry Cheryl McKinney State of Louisiana, DOTD Counsel for Defendant-Applicant, State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development Gerald C. deLaunay Perrin Landry deLaunay Counsel for Plaintiffs-Respondents, Daniel J. Saloom, et al.

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD, JUDGE

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3

ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2018-4974 HONORABLE DAVID M. SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE

Lawrence E. Marino Cearley W. Fontenot Daniel J. Phillips Oats & Marino A Partnership of Professional Corporations Counsel for Defendant-Applicant, State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development

Andrew G. Barry Cheryl McKinney State of Louisiana, DOTD Counsel for Defendant-Applicant, State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development

Gerald C. deLaunay Perrin Landry deLaunay Counsel for Plaintiffs-Respondents, Daniel J. Saloom, et al.

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Van H. Kyzar, and Charles G. Fitzgerald, Judges.

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD, JUDGE

This matter is before us on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court. See Saloom v. Department of Transportation and Development, 22-0596 (La. 6/22/22), ___So.3d ___. In that case, the supreme court specifically ruled as follows:

The court of appeal judgment reversing the trial court's judgment and granting the state's motion for summary judgment is vacated. Because the court of appeal did not consider the state's remaining arguments in support of its motion and in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, we remand the matter to the court of appeal for consideration of the state's remaining assignments of error.

Id. at 7.

This case was previously before us on an application for supervisory writ filed by the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development. Importantly, the writ application sought review of only one ruling; namely, the trial court's denial of the state's cross-motion for summary judgment. And the two assignments of error asserted by the state were premised on estoppel by deed.

In our previous opinion, we granted the writ application, reversed the ruling of the trial court, entered summary judgment in favor of the state, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. See Saloom v. Department of Transportation and Development, 21-666 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/16/22), 350 So.3d 505. In doing so, we thoroughly addressed estoppel by deed. And again, no other assignments, issues, or arguments were before this court for review.

The supreme court, in turn, vacated our judgment, reinstated the trial court's ruling, and remanded the case back to us with the above instructions. However, because we previously considered all assignments, issues, and arguments that were asserted by the state, we now remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

DECREE

For the above reasons, this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

REMANDED.