Henry v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Henry v. Sullivan

206 So. 3d 858, 2016 La. LEXIS 2392

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 18, 2016

DocketNO. 2016-CJ-1867

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 206 So. 3d 858 (Henry v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henry v. Sullivan, 206 So. 3d 858, 2016 La. LEXIS 2392 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM

liThe plain language of La. R.S. 13:4209(B)(2) provides, “[i]f a prior judge has stated an affirmative intent to sign a judgment and failed to do so for whatever reason, the successor judge is empowered to sign the judgment.” [emphasis added]. In the instant case, Judge Amacker, through her oral reasons, clearly manifested an affirmative intent to sign a judgment in favor of relator. Therefore, Judge Dev-ereux, in her capacity as successor judge, is empowered to sign the judgment. Any other result would be contrary to the statutory intent as well as the interests of judicial economy.

Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside. The district court’s February 12, 2016 judgment is reinstated, and the case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of the appeal on the merits.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

liThe plain language of La. R.S. 13:4209(B)(2) provides, “[i]f a prior judge has stated an affirmative intent to sign a judgment and failed to do so for whatever reason, the successor judge is empowered to sign the judgment.” [emphasis added]. In the instant case, Judge Amacker, through her oral reasons, clearly manifested an affirmative intent to sign a judgment in favor of relator. Therefore, Judge Dev-ereux, in her capacity as successor judge, is empowered to sign the judgment. Any other result would be contrary to the statutory intent as well as the interests of judicial economy.

Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside. The district court’s February 12, 2016 judgment is reinstated, and the case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of the appeal on the merits.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 So. 3d 858, 2016 La. LEXIS 2392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-sullivan-la-2016.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack