Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hays v. Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, 143 So. 2d 71.

25 citing documents.

In re Appeal of Narretto 916 So. 2d 1091 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
3rd Cir.1986), , (1962).
Lanclos v. City of Opelousas, Opelousas Municipal Civil Service Commission 486 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, , (1962), and has been repeatedly applied in civil service disciplinary cases.
University of New Orleans v. Pepitune 460 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Department of Public Safety v. Rigby 401 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
(1962); Parrino v. Louisiana State University Sch.
Powell v. CITY OF WINNFIELD FIRE AND POLICE, ETC. 370 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Shelfo v. LHHRA, Pinecrest State School 361 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Patrick v. LAKE CHARLES MUN. FIRE & POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BD. 344 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
"However, in Hays vs. Louisiana Wildlife & Fisheries Commission, , (1962), which involved a somewhat similar constitutional provision applicable to State Civil Service, the Court declared: "`The requirement of this rule that detailed reasons be stated for the action taken plainly comprehends a fair and clear statement of the misconduct of the employee including, wh
Michel v. Dept. of Pub. Saf. Al. Bev. Con. Bd. 341 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
(1962); Parrino v. Louisiana State University Sch.
Sutton v. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ETC. 340 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Hays v. Louisiana Wild Life & Fisheries Commission, , (1962); Sockrider, Dismissal of Louisiana State Civil Service Employees (Comment), 23 La.L.Rev.
Michel v. Department of Public Safety, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 341 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
(1962); Parrino v. Louisiana State University Sch.
Major v. Louisiana Dept. of Highways 333 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
In this connection, , : "The requirement of this rule that detailed reasons be stated for the action taken plainly comprehends a fair and clear statement of the misconduct of the employee including, whenever pertinent, time, dates, places and amounts, if, as in this case, monies are alleged to have been unjustly secured and
Jarrell v. Criminal Sheriff Department 297 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Hays v. Louisiana Wild L. & F. Comm., 1962, , , alternatively reasoned (aided by a here inapplicable State Commission rule requiring “detailed reasons”) that a “fair and clear statement of the misconduct” is essential.
Hoover v. Department of Finance 283 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
(1962) the court set out the reasons behind the requirement of a full description: "The requirement of this rule that detailed reasons be stated for the action taken plainly comprehends a fair and clear statement of the misconduct of the employee including, whenever pertinent, time, dates, places * * *.
Louisiana Civil Service League v. Forbes 246 So. 2d 800 La. 1971
Bedgood v. Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, La.
In re Investigation of Alleged Violation of the Civil Service Law & Rules by Taylor 233 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
*53 Hays v. La Wild Life & Fisheries Commission, , (1962).
Guillory v. State Department of Institutions, Louisiana State Penitentiary 219 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Boucher v. Doyal 210 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Article 14, Section 15(I); Hays v. Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, La.App., , affirmed , .
Robbins v. New Orleans Public Library 208 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
where it says: "* * * The requirement of this rule that detailed reasons be stated for the action taken plainly comprehends a fair and clear statement of the misconduct of the employee including, whenever pertinent, time, dates, places and amounts, if, as in this case, monies are alleged to *28 have b
Parrino v. Louisiana State University School of Medicine 207 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Perkins v. Director of Personnel 197 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Bonnette v. Louisiana State Penitentiary, Dept. of Institutions, La.App., ; Hays v. Wild Life & Fisheries Commission, , affirmed , ; and, Scallan v. Dept. of Institutions, La.App., .
Heno v. Department of Labor, Division of Employment Security 171 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Louisiana Constitution of 1921, Article 14, Section 15(1); , , affirming La.App., .
Hays v. Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Com'n 165 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Hays v. Louisiana Wild Life & Fisheries Commission 153 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Bonnette v. Louisiana State Penitentiary 148 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
the Supreme Court held that the requirements of the Commission's Rule 12.3 "that detailed reasons be stated for the action taken plainly comprehends a fair and clear statement of the misconduct of the employee including, whenever pertinent, time, dates, places and amounts, if * * * monies are alleged
Paternostro v. New Orleans Police Department 146 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
There is considerable support for appellant’s position on this latter point in the very recent case of Hays v. Louisiana Wildlife & Fisheries Commission, , decided by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by