Landiak v. Richmond

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Landiak v. Richmond

896 So. 2d 7, 2005 WL 567037

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 9, 2005

DocketNo. 2005-C-0519

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 896 So. 2d 7 (Landiak v. Richmond) 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

Landiak v. Richmond, 896 So. 2d 7, 2005 WL 567037 (La. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Marilyn Landiak, filed an action objecting to the candidacy of defendant, Cedric Richmond, for New Orleans City Council District D, alleging that he was ineligible for the office because he had not been domiciled in the district for two years prior to the election. Qualifying for the April 2 election ended on February 11, 2005, and Ms. Landiak filed her petition on February 16, 2005. Because Ms. Landiak timely filed her action objecting to candidacy within seven days of the close of qualifying as required by La.Rev.Stat. 18:1405(A), the court of appeal erred in granting the exception of prescription/per-emption filed by Mr. Richmond. The court of appeal judgment is reversed, and defendant’s exception of prescription/per-emption is denied. The case is remanded to the district court for trial on the merits within four days of this ruling.

WRIT GRANTED; COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT REVERSED; REMANDED.

JOHNSON, J., recused. KIMBALL and TRAYLOR, JJ., Would deny the writ.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Marilyn Landiak, filed an action objecting to the candidacy of defendant, Cedric Richmond, for New Orleans City Council District D, alleging that he was ineligible for the office because he had not been domiciled in the district for two years prior to the election. Qualifying for the April 2 election ended on February 11, 2005, and Ms. Landiak filed her petition on February 16, 2005. Because Ms. Landiak timely filed her action objecting to candidacy within seven days of the close of qualifying as required by La.Rev.Stat. 18:1405(A), the court of appeal erred in granting the exception of prescription/per-emption filed by Mr. Richmond. The court of appeal judgment is reversed, and defendant’s exception of prescription/per-emption is denied. The case is remanded to the district court for trial on the merits within four days of this ruling.

WRIT GRANTED; COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT REVERSED; REMANDED.

JOHNSON, J., recused. KIMBALL and TRAYLOR, JJ., Would deny the writ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

896 So. 2d 7, 2005 WL 567037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landiak-v-richmond-la-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack