Floyd Safford v. Hammerman & Gainer International, Inc. and New Orleans Fire Department
Also decided on this docket: La., June 29, 2017 222 So. 3d 39; La., December 16, 2016 211 So. 3d 1165
Floyd Safford v. Hammerman & Gainer International, Inc. and New Orleans Fire Department, 224 So. 3d 946 (La. 2017).
The holding in the court’s own words
After receiving briefing from the parties and reviewing the record of the matter, we conclude the judgment below does not require the exercise of this court’s supervisory authority.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Floyd Safford v. New Orleans Fire Department La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
- Mule v. St. Bernard Parish Fire Dep't 259 So. 3d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Crandell 924 So. 2d 122
- Davis v. Prescott 130 So. 3d 849
- Jeremy George, Et Ux. v. Robbie Dugas, Et Ux. 203 So. 3d 1043
Opinion text
Supreme Court of Louisiana
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #026
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 3rd day of May, 2017, are as follows:
PER CURIAM(S):
2016-C-1591 FLOYD SAFFORD v. HAMMERMAN & GAINER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND
NEW ORLEANS FIRE DEPARTMENT (Office of Workers'
Compensation, District 8)
Accordingly, we recall our order of December 16, 2016 as
improvidently granted, and we deny the writ application.
WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Page 1 of 1
05/03/2017
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2016-C-1591
FLOYD SAFFORD
VERSUS
HAMMERMAN & GAINER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
AND NEW ORLEANS FIRE DEPARTMENT
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH
CIRCUIT, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 8
PER CURIAM
We granted defendant’s application for a writ of certiorari in this case on
December 16, 2016. After receiving briefing from the parties and reviewing the
record of the matter, we conclude the judgment below does not require the exercise
of this court’s supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of December
16, 2016 as improvidently granted, and we deny the writ application.
05/03/2017
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2016-C-1591
FLOYD SAFFORD
VERSUS
HAMMERMAN & GAINER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
AND NEW ORLEANS FIRE DEPARTMENT
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT,
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 8
WEIMER, J., dissenting.
As a matter of prudent court practice, I disagree with the majority’s decision
to recall the writ. I have previously explained:
In the past, I have voted to recall writs, but I have come to the
conclusion this is a poor practice. See State v. Crandell, 05-1060 (La.
3/10/06), 924 So.2d 122 (Weimer, J., dissenting: “[A]fter having granted
the writ, the unique facts and circumstances of this case dictate that we
should resolve this matter on the merits.”). As a more recent example
of my view, see Davis v. Prescott, 13-0669 (La. 11/5/13), 130 So.3d
849, 851 (Weimer, J., dissenting: “I respectfully dissent from the
majority’s decision to recall the writ. Having granted the writ, I would
resolve this case on the merits based on the issues and the record before
this court.”).
George v. Dugas, 16-0710, p. 2 n.1 (La. 11/7/16), 203 So.3d 1043, 1043 n.1
(Weimer, J., dissenting).
After this court granted the writ in this matter, the parties have researched the
issues, prepared briefs, and attended oral argument–all no doubt done at considerable
expense in time, effort, and financial resources. Considering all this was done at this
court’s direction after granting the writ, I believe the parties deserve and are entitled
to an answer on the merits from this court. Thus, I respectfully dissent from the
decision to recall the writ.
2