Heather Miley Cloud v. Tom Schedler in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Louisiana, and Bert Keith Campbell
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., November 21, 2014
Heather Miley Cloud v. Tom Schedler in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Louisiana, and Bert Keith Campbell, No. CA-0014-1223 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Dec. 3, 2014).
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
CA 14-1223
HEATHER MILEY CLOUD
VERSUS
TOM SCHEDLER IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, AND
BERT KEITH CAMPBELL
**********
ON THIS COURT’S OWN MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF OPINION
**********
APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EVANGELINE, NO. 75137-A
HONORABLE JOEL GERARD DAVIS, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Elizabeth A. Pickett, John E. Conery, Judges.
AMENDED AND CORRECTED.
Joffre Wendel Fusilier
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 528
Ville Platte, LA 70586
(337) 363-6661
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Bert Keith Campbell
Kenneth Ray Rush
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 704
Oakdale, LA 71463
(318) 335-2759
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Bert Keith Campbell
Anne Elizabeth Watson
Dupre & Watson
232 N. Liberty St.
Opelousas, LA 70570
(337) 942-9790
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Heather Miley Cloud
Elbert Lee Guillory
Attorney at Law
633 E. Landry St.
Opelousas, LA 70570
(337) 942-6328
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT:
Heather Miley Cloud
Stephen D. Hawkland
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 94125
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
(225) 287-7475
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Secretary of State, State of La.
PICKETT, Judge.
This court issued an opinion in this matter on November 21, 2014, and at the
conclusion of the opinion, assessed costs for this matter against the appellees, the
Secretary of State for the State of Louisiana and Bert Keith Campbell. However,
the Secretary of State has objected to being assessed costs. Pursuant to La.R.S. 18:
1402(D), costs cannot be assessed against the Secretary of State in these election
proceedings. While La.R.S. 18:1409(I) prohibits an application for new trial or
rehearing in suits of this nature, this statute does permit this court, on its own
motion, to amend its opinion to correct a legal error. Since the assessment of costs
against the Secretary of State is specifically prohibited by statute, this portion of
our opinion issued on November 21, 2014, was erroneous, and we hereby amend
the opinion by reversing and setting aside the assessment of costs against the
Secretary of State.