Smith v. Division of Administration

358 So. 2d 1291, 1978 La. App. LEXIS 3443
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJanuary 23, 1978
DocketNo. 11687
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 358 So. 2d 1291 (Smith v. Division of Administration) 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
Smith v. Division of Administration, 358 So. 2d 1291, 1978 La. App. LEXIS 3443 (La. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

PONDER, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

Appellant and appellee filed a motion to dismiss based on the allegation that a compromise had been effected. The court [1292]*1292took the motion under advisement. The statute requires the consent of all parties for a voluntary dismissal.1 Our rules require a joint motion signed by all interested parties.2

LSA-R.S. 13:3416 makes the director of personnel of any department of state civil service an indispensable party in any judicial proceeding wherein relief is sought against any decision of the civil service commission with all the rights and remedies of parties in litigation. LSA-R.S. 13:3417 allows the director of personnel not an indispensable party on his own motion to become a party with all the rights afforded to parties in litigation. A motion to intervene filed by the director was approved on August 18, 1977. This certainly made the director a party within the meaning of the statute and rule. The motion to dismiss was not signed by, and was in fact, opposed by the director. The motion to dismiss is denied.

MERITS

Appellant appeals from the dismissal of his appeal by the Civil Service Commission. The issue is the propriety of that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

In re Division of Administration, 343 So.2d 277 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1977) held that the Division of Administration was a part of the governor’s office within the meaning of the Constitution 3 and the employees of the Division were therefore in the unclassified service. The Supreme Court refused writs, La., 345 So.2d 504 (1977) on the basis of “No error of law . . . ”.

Although two members of the present panel dissented in the In re Division of Administration case, we feel bound to follow that decision, especially since the points made by both appellant and intervenor in the present case were made and rejected in the earlier one.

The dismissal of appellant’s appeal by the Civil Service Commission is therefore affirmed at appellant’s costs.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Smith v. DIVISION OF ADMIN., ETC.
415 So. 2d 381 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1982)
City of Kenner v. Lawrence
365 So. 2d 1301 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1978)
Smith v. Division of Administration
359 So. 2d 994 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
358 So. 2d 1291, 1978 La. App. LEXIS 3443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-division-of-administration-lactapp-1978.