|FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE
|FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 7th day of May, 2013, are as follows:
BY JOHNSON, C.J.:
2012-CJ-2709 PHILLIP RAY MULKEY v. VICKI JUANITA HARRIS MULKEY (Parish of Franklin)
For the above reasons, we find the court of appeal erred in reversing the trial court's modification of custody. Phillip met the burden of Bergeron by proving that any harm caused by a modification of the 2004 custody decree would be substantially outweighed by its advantages to Matthew. Thus, we find no error in the trial court's ruling modifying the 2004 custody decree.
REVERSED. RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT REINSTATED.
WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
BY VICTORY, J.:
2012-KP-0872 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. GIOVANNI BROWN (Parish of Jefferson)
(Aggravated Kidnapping and Armed Robbery 4 Counts)
While Justice Jefferson D. Hughes III was not on the Court at the time this case was argued, he now sits as an elected Justice and is participating in the rendering of this opinion.
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
BY WEIMER, J.:
LOUISIANA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, EAST BATON ROUGE FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, JEFFERSON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, JILLIAN E. ALEXANDER & BILLIE J. SMITH v. STATE OF LOUISIANA & THE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION C/W LOUISIANA ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATORS, ET AL. v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, THE LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION & THE STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION C/W LOUISIANA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION & LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (Parish of E. Baton Rouge)
We hold that by their express terms, SCR 99 and Act 2 unconstitutionally divert MFP funds to nonpublic entities in violation of La. Const. art. VIII, § 13(B), which requires state MFP funds to be allocated equitably to “parish and city school systems.” We also hold that, although SCR 99 was a new matter intended to have the effect of law, SCR 99 did not satisfy all that the constitution requires of a matter intended to have the effect of law. SCR 99 was not timely introduced or considered in the legislative session and the final vote on SCR 99 was insufficient to enact a matter intended to have the effect of law. Because our holding differs from that of the district court regarding the effect of law intended by SCR 99, we reverse the contrary holding of the district court. Accordingly, we render judgment declaring SCR 99 was void from the outset. On a related topic, we note that because we have found SCR 99 was intended to have the effect of law, SCR 99 was not validly enacted.
Finally, once the unconstitutional provisions of Act 2 are analytically severed, we hold that the legislature did not violate the constitution’s one-object rule. That portion of the district court’s judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND RENDERED.
VICTORY, J., concurs.
GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
BY GUIDRY, J.:
2012-C -2182 COLLETTE JOSEY COVINGTON AND JADE COVINGTON v. MCNEESE STATE UNIVERSITY AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM (Parish of Calcasieu)
Judge Jefferson D. Hughes III, assigned as Justice pro tempore, sitting for Kimball, C.J. for oral argument. He sits as an elected Justice at the time this opinion is rendered.
For the reasons set forth above, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's fee award. We therefore reverse the ruling of the court of appeal and reinstate the judgment of the district court.
REVERSED; DISRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT REINSTATED.
JOHNSON, C.J., dissents in part for reasons assigned by Weimer, J.
WEIMER, J., dissents in part and assigns reasons.
BY CLARK, J.:
2012-KA-2243 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TIMOTHY BAZILE (Parish of East Baton Rouge)
(Motion to Declare Constitutional Amendment Unconstitutional)
For the reasons assigned, we find the provisions of La. Const. art. I, Section 17(a), at issue herein, are constitutional under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the state constitution. The district court erred in granting the defendant's motion to have La. Const. art. I, Section 17 (a) declared unconstitutional; the district court's ruling is reversed and vacated. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HUGHES, J. dissents with reasons.
2012-K -1296 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JOE BOB CLARK (Parish of Jefferson) (Sex Offender Failing to Appear for Registration)
The judgments below are therefore reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
2012-C -2369 JAMES KEYS v. REPUBLIC SERVICES- AL OF SCOTT
Accordingly, we recall our order of January 18, 2013 as improvidently granted, and we deny defendant's writ application.