State v. Revere
This text of 638 So. 2d 1229 (State v. Revere) 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.
Opinion
This is an appeal in a suit for mandamus.
FACTS
On February 22, 1993, defendant, Rodney Revere, requested that the St. Tammany [1230]*1230Sheriffs Office forward to him various items pursuant to LSA-R.S. 44:1, et seq.
Thereafter, on April 20, 1993, Revere filed an application for writ of mandamus, requesting that the sheriff show cause why the requested documents should not be produced. On April 30, 1993, the trial judge denied Revere’s request, ex parte, noting that all non-privileged documents had previously been provided. There is no evidence in , the record that a contradictory hearing was held on the issue.
From this adverse judgment, Revere appeals.2
FAILURE TO HAVE HEARING ON MANDAMUS PROCEEDING FOR PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC RECORD
Revere contends that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a contradictory hearing on his petition for mandamus.
This issue was addressed by this court in Revere v. Layrisson, 593 So.2d 397 (La.App. 1st Cir.1991). For the reasons outlined in Revere v. Layrisson, we find that the trial court erred |sby rendering judgment on a petition for mandamus without first conducting a contradictory hearing as required by law.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for a contradictory hearing on Revere’s petition for mandamus.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
638 So. 2d 1229, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 2066, 1994 WL 278559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-revere-lactapp-1994.