99-C-0273 Precedential Processed

Guillot v. Munn

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed April 23, 1999 · 734 So. 2d 613

Cited by

Parfait v. Transocean Offshore, Inc. 953 So. 2d 57 La. 2007
Parfait v. Transocean Offshore, Inc. 953 So. 2d 58 La. 2007
In re Banks 939 So. 2d 1201 La. 2006
In re Kimball 805 So. 2d 1167 La. 2002
Guillot v. Munn 756 So. 2d 290 La. 2000
In re Smith 752 So. 2d 798 La. 1999
Guillot v. Munn 740 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Harris v. Morton Chemical Co. 355 So. 2d 963
Bradford v. Doe 357 So. 2d 1156
Kramer v. Continental Cas. Co. 641 So. 2d 557
State v. Giles 648 So. 2d 399
White v. White 648 So. 2d 402

Opinion text

734 So.2d 613 (1999) Lisa Smith Munn GUILLOT v. Marion Patrick MUNN, Jr. No. 99-C-0273. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 23, 1999. PER CURIAM. [*] Granted; judgment vacated and case remanded to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. La. Const. art. V, § 8(B) provides that a "majority of the judges sitting in a case must concur to render judgment." The court of appeal erred as a matter of law in concluding that because the "members of [the] five judge panel cannot agree on a disposition of this case[, t]he effect... is that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed." Under its constitutional authority to review cases, the court of appeal must consider and decide the case. The adjudicative function of the reviewing court considering an appeal of right is not fulfilled when the court calls it a tie and decides not to decide. Accordingly, the court of appeal's judgment is vacated in full and this case is remanded to the court of appeal. It is ordered that the panel of that court render judgment, by majority vote, on all issues in the case, whether by single vote, by separate vote on each issue, or by a per curiam of the court with members expressing their concurrence or dissent separately. See, e.g., Derbofen v. T.L. James & Co., 355 So.2d 963 (La.App. 4 Cir.1977), writ denied, 357 So.2d 1156 , 1168 (La.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 911 , 99 S.Ct. 280 , 58 L.Ed.2d 257 (1978), in which the five-judge panel expressed its consensus decision in a per curiam opinion, with each individual judge expressing his view in partial dissenting and concurring opinions; see also Kramer v. Continental Cas. Co., 92-1131 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/22/94) , 641 So.2d 557 , writ not considered, 94-2576 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 399 , writ denied, 94-2473, 94-2474, 94-2475 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 402 , 403, in which the five-judge panel expressed its consensus decision in an opinion, with one judge concurring, one judge concurring in the result, and two judges dissenting. It is further ordered that the court of appeal hear the case with preference and priority, and render its judgment expeditiously. NOTES [*] Kimball, J., not on panel. See Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.