Pattan v. Fields
This text of 661 So. 2d 142 (Pattan v. Fields) 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.
Opinion
Joseph W. PATTAN, III
v.
Wilson FIELDS.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
PER CURIAM.[*]
Granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is set aside. The Court of Appeal, First Circuit, consists of thirteen elected judges. Five of the elected judges voted to affirm the judgment of the trial court, four dissented, three were noted as not participating, and one judge was not accounted for.
La.Rev.Stat. 18:1409 requires an en banc decision in this case. La. Const. art. V, § 8(B) requires that "[a] majority of the judges sitting in a case must concur to render judgment." A majority of a thirteen-judge court is seven, and there were not seven votes to render a judgment either affirming or reversing. Therefore, the purported judgment of less than a majority of the court was invalid. Moreover, all of the judges on the court must participate unless one or more judges is recused or has a valid reason for not participating.
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the court of appeal to render a judgment by a majority of the elected judges.
WATSON, J., dissents from the order and would have granted the writ, finding Wilson Fields meets the domicile requirements for candidacy.
NOTES
[*] Kimball, J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
661 So. 2d 142, 1995 WL 590201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pattan-v-fields-la-1995.