· 12/1/1902

Succession of Wintz

Citations

111 La. 40
35 So. 377
1902 La. LEXIS 175

Syllabus

APPEAL—MOTION TO DISMISS — DEVOLUTIVE APPEAL—ADMINISTRATOR—APPOINTMENT ON MOTION TO DISMISS. 1. The court may in its discretion defer the question as to whether it has all the documents needful to the review of the issues, to be decided on the merits, and then dismiss the appeal if documents are not properly brought up. 2. The appeal from a judgment dismissing an application for the administration of a succession is, or should be, devolutive. 3. The appellate court need not remand the case to have it determined by the district court whether it should be suspensive or devolutive. 4. It has jurisdiction to determine that it should be devolutive instead of suspensive. 5. The appeal is ordered to stand as a devolutive appeal, and it is dismissed in so far as it is suspensive. Monroe, J., dissenting. On the Merits. The largest claim against this succession is one made by an heir. The debts to third persons are insignificant, and these one of the heirs offers to secure by bond. The heirs are all majors. The judgment of the district court, refusing to appoint an administrator, under the circumstances is affirmed. See Alleman v. Bergeron, 16 La. Ann. 192; Succession of Graves, 23 South. 738, 50 La. Ann. 435. (Syllabus by the Court.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

finding that complaint “fail[ed] to state a cause of action [for unfair competition] as it fail[ed] to allege tortious conduct separate from its [misappropriation of trade secret claims]”
finding plaintiff alleged specific intent where complaint alleged that individual defendant sold components of a retractable roof after notice that the designs infringed the patents
declining to take judicial notice of any materials proffered from defendant’s website “as the information appears to be proffered for the truth of the matter asserted on the site” (citations omitted)
finding allegations that a defendant, inter alia, “encouraged and facilitated” the acquisition of trade secrets to be “more than sufficient to allege that [it] was a participant, if not the leader in a coordinated effort to misappropriate plaintiff’s trade secrets”
“A claim for unfair competition based on the same allegations as a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets is treated as a single cause of action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Breaux, Monroe, Nigholls

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.