Case Summary: In re Succession of Ruby Thibodaux

Citation: No. 98-C-1624 — Supreme Court of Louisiana, September 1, 1998.

Lower Courts: Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA97 1285; 21st Judicial District Court, Div. "C", No. 96-30414.

Factual and Procedural Background

The document is an opinion entry in the matter styled "In re Succession of Ruby Thibodaux," docket number 98-C-1624, filed with the Supreme Court of Louisiana on September 1, 1998. The case had previously proceeded in the Court of Appeal, First Circuit (No. CA97 1285) and originated in the 21st Judicial District Court, Division "C" (No. 96-30414). The Supreme Court's entry states that the court, "Considering the foregoing Motion," ordered that Albert J. LeBreton, III's Application for Writ of Certiorari to review the judgment of the First Circuit Court of Appeal be withdrawn and dismissed.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The opinion is a brief order. Its stated basis is consideration of "the foregoing Motion." The court acted on that motion by entering an order that the application for writ of certiorari filed by Albert J. LeBreton, III was withdrawn and dismissed. The text contains no extended legal analysis, factual findings, or discussion of legal principles beyond the court's action in response to the motion.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application for writ of certiorari was withdrawn and dismissed.

Implications: As a direct consequence of the order, Albert J. LeBreton, III's application for the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the First Circuit's judgment was terminated by withdrawal and dismissal; therefore, the Supreme Court did not grant review in this matter. The opinion contains no analysis suggesting the creation of new law or precedential guidance. No broader legal implications are discussed in the text.