No. 6703 Precedential Processed

In re Buquet

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed February 28, 1966 · 184 So. 2d 288

Also decided on this docket: La., April 15, 1878 30 La. Ann. 798; La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., September 26, 1975 314 So. 2d 372

Cited by

Distinguished in 1

State v. Jones 544 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Louisiana Commission on Ethics for Public Employees v. City of Baton Rouge 471 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Glazer v. Com'n on Ethics for Pub. Employees 431 So. 2d 752 La. 1983
Glazer v. Commission on Ethics 417 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
City of Shreveport v. Curry 357 So. 2d 1078 La. 1978
Womack v. Louisiana Commission on Governmental Ethics 199 So. 2d 891 La. 1967
Whitney National Bank in Jefferson Parish v. James 189 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
In re Investigation of Alleged Violation of the Code of Governmental Ethics by Buquet 186 So. 2d 159 La. 1966

Opinion text

On Rehearing. PER CURIAM. Appellee in its application for rehearing correctly points out that we erred in stating that should the occasion arise in which a board or commission member is called upon to perform a duty or make a decision in his official capacity with respect to a transaction wherein a conflict of interest arises, he need only disqualify himself under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 42:1112 C. LSA-R.S. 42:1117 specifically excludes application of R.S. 42:1112 in the case of members of boards or commissions appointed by the Governor and not otherwise full-time state employees “as defined in R.S. 42:1111.” The term “full-time state employee” is not separately defined in R.S. 42:1111, but, taking the term in its most common signification we must concede that the appellant would not be considered embraced within its meaning. Nevertheless our original opinion shows that our decision was not based on the possible application of the said section to the facts of this case. Neither are we called upon to l'ule upon the possible applicability of LSA-R.S. 56 :- 1621 which prohibits exploitation of natural resources of the state by certain state officials and employees, as suggested by appellee. The applicability and interpretation of that statute and the constitutional problems connected therewith must await a proper case in which such questions are presented for determination. Rehearing denied.