Michael MUDGE, Et Al. v. PLAQUEMINES PARISH COUNCIL, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Michael MUDGE, Et Al. v. PLAQUEMINES PARISH COUNCIL, Et Al.

192 So. 3d 735, 2016 WL 3129088, 2016 La. LEXIS 998

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 22, 2016

Docket2016-CA-0587

StatusPublished

This text of 192 So. 3d 735 (Michael MUDGE, Et Al. v. PLAQUEMINES PARISH COUNCIL, Et Al.) 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

Michael MUDGE, Et Al. v. PLAQUEMINES PARISH COUNCIL, Et Al., 192 So. 3d 735, 2016 WL 3129088, 2016 La. LEXIS 998 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

| Jntervenor, NOLA Oil Company, Inc., invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this court pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 5(D), on the ground that the district court declared Plaquemines Parish Zoning Ordinance Section VI(M)(1)(b) unconstitutionally vague.

Pretermitting the merits, we find the district court’s judgment is procedurally defective. In particular, the record reveals the attorney general was not served with the pleading challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance as required by La.Code Civ. P. art. 1880. In Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., 94-1238 at p. 7 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 859, 864, this court explained, “[t]he attorney general is not an indispensable party; but, he must be served in declaratory judgment actions which seek a declaration of unconstitutionality of a statute.” The purpose of the service requirement in La.Code. Civ. P. art. 1880 is to ensure that the attorney general is “afforded the necessary opportunity to be heard as the codal article requires.” Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Gov’t, 07-2432, p. 5, fn. 6 (La.5/21/08), 982 So.2d 795, 801.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

| Jntervenor, NOLA Oil Company, Inc., invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this court pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 5(D), on the ground that the district court declared Plaquemines Parish Zoning Ordinance Section VI(M)(1)(b) unconstitutionally vague.

Pretermitting the merits, we find the district court’s judgment is procedurally defective. In particular, the record reveals the attorney general was not served with the pleading challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance as required by La.Code Civ. P. art. 1880. In Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., 94-1238 at p. 7 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 859, 864, this court explained, “[t]he attorney general is not an indispensable party; but, he must be served in declaratory judgment actions which seek a declaration of unconstitutionality of a statute.” The purpose of the service requirement in La.Code. Civ. P. art. 1880 is to ensure that the attorney general is “afforded the necessary opportunity to be heard as the codal article requires.” Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Gov’t, 07-2432, p. 5, fn. 6 (La.5/21/08), 982 So.2d 795, 801.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 So. 3d 735, 2016 WL 3129088, 2016 La. LEXIS 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-mudge-et-al-v-plaquemines-parish-council-et-al-la-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack