WILVON ALLISON, ET AL.
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL.
FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF
CALCASIEU, NO. 2007-3286 C/W 2007-2786 HONORABLE G. MICHAEL
CANADAY, DISTRICT JUDGE.
E. Landry Scofield, Gerard, Pohorelsky, Gallaugher &
Landry COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellant - CITGO Petroleum
Albert Patrick, III R. Heath Savant Donahue, Patrick &
Scott COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellee - R & R
Talbot Watson Bagget, McCall, Burgess COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiffs/Appellees - Robert D. Marshall, Tamara N.
Marceaux, Daron Christopher Hidalgo, John Thomas Cochran,
Gewan Papillion, Alfred Joseph Carrier, Eric Mark Allison,
and Marcus Dwayne Clark
Marshall Joseph Simien, Jr. Simien Law Firm COUNSEL FOR:
Defendant/Appellant - CITGO Petroleum Corporation
Richard Elliott Wilson Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson
COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiffs/Appellees - Gewan Papillion, Eric
Mark Allison, Marcus Dwayne Clark, John Thomas Cochran, Daron
Christopher Hidalgo, Tamara N. Marceaux, Alfred Joseph
Carrier, and Robert D. Marshall
Isenberg Joshua O. Cox Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman &
Sarver, L.L.C. COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellant - CITGO
composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Shannon J.
Gremillion, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.
ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE
reasons discussed in the consolidated appeal of Eric Mark
Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., 18-302
(La.App. 3 Cir. ___/___/18), ___ So.3d ___ (Trial Docket No.
2007-2786), the judgment of the trial court in this appeal,
Wilvon Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et
al., 18-303 (La.App. 3 Cir. ___/___/18), ___ So.3d ___
(Trial Docket No. 2007-3286), is affirmed. Costs of this
appeal are assessed to the defendant, CITGO Petroleum
GREMILLION, Judge, concurs and assigns the following reasons:
concur in the result reached in this matter because of
CITGO's stipulation to fault and liability. I disagree
with the majority's reasoning regarding CITGO's
motion for summary judgment. The affidavits and attached
contracts should not have been excluded from evidence on the
motion for summary judgment. It was not CITGO's burden to
prove that the omitted portions of the contracts did ...