Monk v. State
Also decided on this docket: La., March 24, 2006 925 So. 2d 1238; La., March 24, 2006 925 So. 2d 1238
Monk v. State, 940 So. 2d 642 (La. 2006).
The holding in the court’s own words
After hearing oral arguments and reviewing the issues raised in this matter, we conclude that the judgment below does not require *643 the exercise of our supervisory authority.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Maldonado v. Kiewit Louisiana Co. 152 So. 3d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
- Wilson v. Town of Mamou 972 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
- Woodrow Wilson, Jr. v. Town of Mamou La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
- Johnson v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 946 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Lachney v. Hanover Insurance Company 925 So. 2d 1238
Opinion text
940 So.2d 642 (2006) Royce MONK, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, DOTD. Dana Vezinat, et al. v. State of Louisiana, DOTD. Marlin Lashley, et al. v. State of Louisiana, DOTD. Greg Harmon, et al. v. State of Louisiana, DOTD. No. 2005-C-2337. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 17, 2006. Charles C. Foti, Jr., Attorney General, John H. Ayres, III, David P. Spence, Assistant Attorneys General, for Applicant. Chris J. Roy, Jr., A Law Corporation, Christopher J. Roy, Jr., Jacques M. Roy, Alexandria; Creed & Creed, Christian C. Creed, Monroe; Rivers, Beck, Dalrymple & Ledet, Eugene A. Ledet, Jr., Alexandria, Lloyd K. Milam, Tony K. Milam, Tony C. Tillman, Daniel C. Vidrine, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. Upon the State's writ application, we granted certiorari in this case. Monk, et al. v. State of Louisiana, DOTD, 05-C-2337 (La.3/24/06), 925 So.2d 1238 . After hearing oral arguments and reviewing the issues raised in this matter, we conclude that the judgment below does not require *643 the exercise of our supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of March 24, 2006, as improvidently granted, and we deny the State's application. VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., dissent and assign reasons. VICTORY, J., dissenting. I dissent from the recall of the writ and would render a full opinion on the merits. WEIMER, J., dissenting. Because I am convinced the driver shares responsibility for causing this tragic accident, I would not recall the writ.