# Supreme Court of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #013

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 17th day of March, 2015 , are as follows:

PER CURIAM :
2014

- C

- 1233 NELLIE PIERCE, ET AL. v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, ET AL. (Parish of Vermilion)
Accordingly, the lower courts judgments are reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. WEIMER, J., concurs, and assigns reasons. GUIDRY, J., concurs and assigns reasons.0 3 / 1 7 / 1 5

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F L O U I S I A N A

N O

. 2 0 1 4

- C

- 1 2 3 3

N E L L I E P I E R C E , E T A L

.
V E R S U S

A T L A N T I C R I C H F I E L D C O M P A N Y , E T A L

.
O N W R I T O F C E R T I O R A R I T O T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L , T H I R D C I R C U I T , P A R I S H O F V E R M I L I O N

P E R C U R I A M

B e c a u s e E a g l e P i

p e & S u p p l y , I n c

. v

. A m e r a d a H

e s s C o r p

. , 1 0

- 2 2 6 7 , 1 0

- 2 2 7 5 ,
1 0

- 2 2 7 9 , 1 0

- 2 2 8 9 ( L a

. 1 0 / 2 5 / 1 1 ) , 7 9 S o

. 3 d 2 4 6 , a d d r e s s e d s u b s e q u e n t p u r c h a s e r

r i g h t s f o l l o w i n g a s a l e , w h i c h a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e r i g h t s a c q u i r e d t h r o u g h a

s u c c e s s i o n t r a n s f

e r , w e f i n d E a g l e P i

p e i s n o t d i s p o s i t i v e o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s o f n o r i g h t

o f a c t i o n f

i l e d b y t h e d e f

e n d a n t s i n t h i s c a s e

. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e l o w e r c o u r t j u d g m e n t s

a r e r e v e r s e d , a n d t h e c a s e i s r e m a n d e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

. 1

Plaintiffs also included Nellie Pierce and Pierce Enterpr ises. The court of appea l conclude d 1 “[i] t is undisputed that neither Mrs. Pierce nor Pierce Enterpr ises have any owner ship interest in any of the proper

ty at issue befor e the court.” The p ar t i es l i mited their arg uments to the rig hts of the Pierce children as “univer sal leg atee s.” There fore , the rig hts of Nellie Pierce and Pierce Enterpr ises
are not at issue.

### 0 3 / 1 7 / 1 5

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F L O U I S I A N A

N O
. 20 14 -C -1 23 3

N E L L IE PI E R C E , E T A L
.
V E R S U S

A T L A N T IC R IC H FI E L D C O M PA N Y , E T A L
.

ON W RIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH O

F VERMI LION



### W E IM E R , J. , co nc ur rin g.

I co nc ur in th e res ul t. S ee E ag le Pi p e an d S u p p ly , I n c . v . A m era d a H es s

C or p . , 10 -2 26 7, 10 -2 27 5, 10 -2 27 9, 10 -2 28 9 (L a. 10 /2 5/ 11 ), 79 S o. 3d 24 6 (W ei mer,

J. , di ss en ti ng at pp

. 28 4- 88 , 29 1- 93 ).1



### 03/17/15

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2014

- C

- 1233 NELLIE PIERCE, ET AL.
VERSUS ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF VERMILLION

GUIDRY, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

I concur in the result of our per curiam decision today. I write separately to point out that our reversal of the lower courts’ rulings, because they relied on the subsequent purchaser doctrine as applied in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp. , 10

- 2267, 10

- 2275, 10

- 2279, 1 0

- 2289 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246, does not address the merits of any other basis for the defendants’ exceptions or defenses, including extinguishment of the plaintiffs’ claims by confusion and prescription or peremption.