Karen Cohen Kinnett v. Jarred Brandon Kinnett
Karen Cohen Kinnett v. Jarred Brandon Kinnett, No. 2022-CJ-01199 (La. Sept. 20, 2022).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- 339 So. 3d 548 not in our corpus
- State v. Webb 144 So. 3d 971
- 332 So. 3d 1149 not in our corpus
- McLean v. Hunter 495 So. 2d 1298
Opinion text
Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 20, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
KAREN COHEN KINNETT
VS.
JARRED BRANDON KINNETT
No. 2022-CJ-01199
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Jarred Brandon Kinnett - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of
Certiorari, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Number(s) 768 -195,
Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 17-CA-625;
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 20, 2022
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., would deny.
Griffin, J., would deny.
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
09/20/2022 "See News Release 041 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2022-CJ-01199
c
/w
No
. 2022-CJ-1246
KA
REN COHEN KINNETT
VS.
JARRED BRANDON KINNETT
O
n Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson
P
ER CURIAM
G
ranted. It is well settled that the determination of whether a statute is
constitutional presents a question of law, which is reviewed on a de novo basis.
Westlawn Cemeteries, L.L.C. v. Louisiana Cemetery Bd., 2021-01414 (La. 3/25/22),
339 So.3d 548, 559; City of New Orleans v. Clark, 2017-1453 (La. 9/7/18), 251 So.
3d 1047, 1051; State v. Webb, 2013-1681 (La. 5/7/14), 144 So.3d 971, 975. There
is sufficient evidence in the record, including the proffered evidence, for the court
of appeal to review the district court’s judgment finding La. Civ. Code art. 198 to be
constitutional.1
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal remanding this case to the
district court for a new trial is vacated and set aside. Pursuant to our decree in Kinnett
v. K
innett, 20-1134 (La. 12/10/21), 332 So.3d 1149, the case is remanded to the court
of appeal to consider Mr. Andrews’ constitutional challenge.
1 To the extent Mr. Andrews failed to proffer certain testimony, he is precluded from complaining
of the exclusion of this testimony. McLean v. Hunter, 495 So.2d 1298, 1305 (La. 1986).
09/20/22