
    Nellie PIERCE, et al. v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2014-C-1233.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2015.
    
      Perrin, Landry, DeLaunay, Dartez & Ouellet, Warren A. Perrin; Smith Stag, LLC, Stuart Housel Smith, Michael Gregory Stag, Sean Seton Cassidy, Ashley Melerine Liuzza, New Orleans, LA, for Applicant.
    Allen & Gooch, Michael Edward Parker, Lafayette, LA; Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP, Francis S. Craig, III, Baton Rouge, LA; Christovich & Kearney, James Aristide Holmes, John Kearney Nieset, New Orleans, LA, Patrick Ryan Plummer; Jones Walker, LLP, Carl David Rosenblum, Alida Camors Hainkel, New Orleans, LA; Kean Miller, LLP, Michael R. Phillips, Brittany Buckley Salup, Shannon Alicia Shelton, New Orleans, LA; Lu-genbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, Ralph Shelton Hubbard, III, Baton Rouge, LA, Celeste D. Elliott, Anne Elizabeth Briard, New Orleans, LA; Ottinger Hebert, LLC, William Hunter Lemoine Kaufman, Valerie Guidry, Lafayette, LA; Phelps Dunbar, LLP, George Bartlett Hall, Jr., Houston, TX, Katie A. Whitman Myers, New Orleans, LA; Shell Oil Company, David Phillip Curtis, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

| Because Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246, addressed subsequent purchaser rights following a sale, which are distinguishable from the rights acquired through a succession transfer, we find Eagle Pipe is not dispositive of the exceptions of no right of action filed by the defendants in this case. Accordingly, the lower court judgments are reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

WEIMER, Justice, concurs and assigns reasons.

GUIDRY, Justice, concurs and assigns reasons.

WEIMER, J.,

concurring.

hi concur in the result. See Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La.10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246 (Weimer, J., dissenting at pp. 284-88, 291-93).

GUIDRY, J.,

concurs and assigns reasons.

hi 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, 10-2289 (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. 
      
      . Plaintiffs also included Nellie Pierce and Pierce Enterprises. The court of appeal concluded "[i]t is undisputed that neither Mrs. Pierce nor Pierce Enterprises have any ownership interest in any of the property at issue before the court.” The parties limited their arguments to the rights of the Pierce children as "universal legatees.” Therefore, the rights of Nellie Pierce and Pierce Enterprises are not at issue.
     