Herlitz Constr. Co. v. Hotel Inv'rs of New Iberia - 396 So. 2d 878 (La. 1981)

Rule:

A court of appeal has plenary power to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over district courts and may do so at any time, according to the discretion of the court. In cases in which peremptory exceptions are overruled, appellate courts generally do not exercise supervisory jurisdiction, since the exceptor may win on the merits or may reurge the exception on appeal. This general policy, however, should not be applied mechanically. When the overruling of the exception is arguably incorrect, when a reversal will terminate the litigation, and when there is no dispute of fact to be resolved, judicial efficiency and fundamental fairness to the litigants dictates that the merits of the application for supervisory writs should be decided in an attempt to avoid the waste of time and expense of a possibly useless future trial on the merits.

Facts:

Herlitz filed a petition for damages incurred as a consequence of defendants Hotel Investors of New Iberia, et al.'s failure to make timely payments under a construction contract. Defendants filed an exception of no cause of action, contending that the only item of damages recoverable for the failure to perform timely an obligation to pay money is interest. The trial court overruled the exception. Defendants then applied for supervisory writs. The court of appeal denied, stating: "This Court will not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction save in cases where there is palpable error in the ruling complained of, and then only if irreparable injury will ensue. No such showing being made, the application is denied."

Issue:

Should the supervisory writs be granted?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

A court of appeal has plenary power to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over district courts and may do so at any time, according to the discretion of the court. In cases in which peremptory exceptions are overruled, appellate courts generally do not exercise supervisory jurisdiction, since the exceptor may win on the merits or may reurge the exception on appeal. This general policy, however, should not be applied mechanically. When the overruling of the exception is arguably incorrect, when a reversal will terminate the litigation, and when there is no dispute of fact to be resolved, judicial efficiency and fundamental fairness to the litigants dictates that the merits of the application for supervisory writs should be decided in an attempt to avoid the waste of time and expense of a possibly useless future trial on the merits. Here, the exception is arguably meritorious, and since there are no disputed facts and the maintaining of the exception would terminate the litigation, it is appropriate for the court of appeal to decide the merits of the application.