Sharon Tisdale v. David Hedrick As Sheriff Of Concordia Parish And Matthew Morgan

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 01, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
SHARON TISDALE
VS.
DAVID HEDRICK AS SHERIFF OF
CONCORDIA PARISH AND MATTHEW
MORGAN
No. 2022-C-01072
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: David Hedrick, as Concordia Parish Sheriff - Applicant Defendant; Applying
For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Number(s)
52698, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) 22-1;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 01, 2022
Writ application granted - see briefing notice and Order.
SJC
JLW
JDH
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
11/01/2022 "See News Release 047 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

$ryttmt 6.ard
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Setu @rlennr
First Oistnct
Second Oistnct
Third District
Fourth Distnct
Fiflh District
Seventh Dislrict
VERONICA O, KOCI.ANES
CLERK OF COURT
400 RoyalSt., Suite 4200
NEW ORLEANS. LA 70130.8102
TELEPHONE (504) 310-2300
HOME PAGE httpJ/www.lasc.org
November 01,2022
2022-C-01072 SHARON TISDAIE VS. DAVID HEDRICK AS SHEzuFF
OF CONCORDIA PARISH, ET AL.
NOTE: FOR BRIEFING PLIRPOSES WRIT GRANTED Novembet 01,2022
MEMORANDUM TO COI.]NSEL IN CAPTIONED CASE:
Please be advised that the above-captioned matter will be set for oral argument on this
Court's next available docket. A copy of the official docket with the specific date and time
of oral argument will be mailed out.
Please note Section 8 of Rule VII of the Rules of this Court nrovides that the applicant
or relator, as the case mav be. must file their briefs on or before November 28,2022t
and the resDondent on or before December 16,2022.
Oral argument will be waived if brief is untimely filed. Briefs submiued on legal sized paper
should be fastened at the top. All briefs should be backed with the customary "Blueback" or
other flexible material. In criminal proceedings, the court directs that counsel must file a
brief. Failure to do so may subject counsel to a penalty of contempt of Court.
It is further provided in Rule VII, Section 9 that briefs sent through the mail shall be deemed
timely filed if mailed on or before the due date. If the brief is received by mail on the first
legal day following the expiration of the delay, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that it
was timely filed. In all cases where the presumption does not apply, the timeliness of the
mailing shall be shown only by an official United States postmark or by official receipt or
certificate from the United States Postal Service, or bona fide commercial mail services such
as Federal Express or United Parcel Service, made at the time of mailing which indicates the
date thereof. Any other date stamp, such as a private commercial mail meter stamp, or label
from an Automated Postal Center, shall not be used to establish timeliness.
Briefs forwarded by private delivery or courier service shall be deemed timely filed only if
received by the clerk on or before the last day of the delay for filing.
With kindest regards, I remain,
ly yours,
yan Chan
RC:RC
Deputy Clerk
CHIEF JUSTICE
JOHN L, WEIMER
JUSTICES
WLLIAM J CRAIN
SCOTT J. CRICHTON
JAMES T, GENOVESE
JAY B. MCCALLUM
JEFFERSON D, HUGHES III
PIPER O, GRIFFIN
Sinh District
11/01/22

ccs: All Counsel
Hon. Jimmie C. Peters
Hon. Clyde R. Webber, Jr.
Hon. Renee R. Simien
7th Judicial District Court: 52698
Court of Appeal, Third Circuit:22-l

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2022-C-01072
SHARON TISDALE
VERSUS
DAVID HEDRICK AS SHERIFF OF CONCORDIA PARISH
AND MATTHEW MORGAN
On Writ of Certiorari and/or Review
Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Concordia, No. 52698;
Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 22-1.
And, whereas, the Court has this date, pursuant to Article 5, Section 5, ofthe
Constitution of Louisiana, made and issued the following order, to wit- "It is
ordered that the writ of review issue; that the District Court and the Court of
Appeal send up the record in Duplicate ofthe case; and that counsel for all parties
be notified."
Now, therefore, the said District Court and the Court of Appeal is hereby
commanded, in the name of the State of Louisiana and of this Honorable Court, to
send up forthwith to this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule l, at the
City ofNew Orleans, the record in duplicate ofthe above-entitled case.
Witness the Honorable Justices of the
Supreme Court ofthe State oflouisiana, on
this l't day of November, in the year of our
Lord, Two Thousand Twenty-Two.
Veronica O. Koclanes
Clerk of Court
Deputy Clerk of Court