Reinhardt v. Barger

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Reinhardt v. Barger

15 So. 3d 122, 2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 2363, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 937, 2009 WL 1151791

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 29, 2009

Docket2007 CA 2363

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 15 So. 3d 122 (Reinhardt v. Barger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reinhardt v. Barger, 15 So. 3d 122, 2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 2363, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 937, 2009 WL 1151791 (La. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

|TIn the courts of appeal of the State of Louisiana, “[a] majority of the judges sitting in a case must concur to render judgment.” La. Const. Art. Y, § 8(B). Because the en banc panel of this court is evenly split, no majority has concurred to reverse or modify the trial court’s judgment; thus, the judgment of the trial court must stand, and the effect of the court of appeal’s vote is to affirm the trial court’s judgment as rendered. Parfait v. Transocean Offshore, Inc., 2007-1915 (La.3/14/08), 980 So.2d 634, 638-639.

TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT STANDS.

KUHN, GUIDRY, GAIDRY and HUGHES, JJ., concur and assign reasons.

PARRO, J., concurs and assigns reasons, joined by McCLENDON, J.

PETTIGREW, J., concurs and assigns reasons, joined by DOWNING and WHIPPLE, JJ.

[123]*123WELCH, J., concurs with the reasons assigned by PETTIGREW and HUGHES, JJ.

McDONALD, j., concurs for reasons assigned by KUHN, GAIDRY, and PARRO, JJ.

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

PER CURIAM.

|TIn the courts of appeal of the State of Louisiana, “[a] majority of the judges sitting in a case must concur to render judgment.” La. Const. Art. Y, § 8(B). Because the en banc panel of this court is evenly split, no majority has concurred to reverse or modify the trial court’s judgment; thus, the judgment of the trial court must stand, and the effect of the court of appeal’s vote is to affirm the trial court’s judgment as rendered. Parfait v. Transocean Offshore, Inc., 2007-1915 (La.3/14/08), 980 So.2d 634, 638-639.

TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT STANDS.

KUHN, GUIDRY, GAIDRY and HUGHES, JJ., concur and assign reasons.

PARRO, J., concurs and assigns reasons, joined by McCLENDON, J.

PETTIGREW, J., concurs and assigns reasons, joined by DOWNING and WHIPPLE, JJ.

[123]*123WELCH, J., concurs with the reasons assigned by PETTIGREW and HUGHES, JJ.

McDONALD, j., concurs for reasons assigned by KUHN, GAIDRY, and PARRO, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 So. 3d 122, 2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 2363, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 937, 2009 WL 1151791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reinhardt-v-barger-lactapp-2009.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack