March 24, 2000 - Opinions - Louisiana Supreme Court

<div>
                         <div class="content">
                             <div class="bcrumb">
                                 <ol class="row breadcrumb offprint">
                                     <li><a href="/">Home</a></li>
                                             <li><a href="CourtActions/2000">Court Actions</a></li>

<li class="active">
March 24, 2000 
                                             </li>

</ol>

</div>
                         </div>

<div id="mainbodycontent" class="col col-md-12 mainbodycontent" style="margin-top:-10px;">                    
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:justify;" width="90%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td valign="top" width="63%">FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE</td><td valign="top" width="37%"><div align="right">NEWS RELEASE #020</div></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td valign="top">FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA</td><td valign="top">&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table><p>&nbsp;</p><div style="text-align:justify;"><p>The Opinions handed down on the<strong>&nbsp;<span style="text-decoration:underline;">24th day of March, 2000</span></strong>, are as follows:&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="text-decoration:underline;"><strong>BY KIMBALL, J.&nbsp;</strong></span><strong>:</strong></p><p><a href="/opinions/2000/99c2132.opn.pdf">1999-C- 2132 LISA SMITH MUNN GUILLOT v. MARION PATRICK MUNN, JR.&nbsp;</a>(Family Court For The Parish Of East Baton Rouge)<br />For the reasons assigned herein, the judgments of the lower courts are reversed insofar as they set Mr. Munn's child support obligation in the amount of $474.00 per month. We vacate and set aside the lower courts' judgments as to the remaining issues. The case is remanded to the trial court with the following instructions. In keeping with the codal dictate that the paramount consideration in child support proceedings is the best interest of the child and considering the amount of time this case has spent in the judicial system, this court in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction orders that on remand this case shall proceed expeditiously and within the following time frames to the extent practicable: (1) the trial court shall proceed with this rule consistent with this opinion and render a judgment within twenty days after the expiration of time delays for filing an application for rehearing in this court or after the disposition of an application for rehearing should one be filed; (2) the trial court shall set the return day of the appeal, should one be requested, no more than fifteen days from the signing of said judgment or from the mailing of notice of the judgment, if required; and (3) in this event, the court of appeal shall decide the appeal within twenty day of the lodging of the record on appeal by assigning it for expeditious treatment with preference and priority.<br />REVERSED IN PART; VACATED IN PART and REMANDED FOR EXPEDITED HEARING CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel. See Rule IV, Part 2,&sect;3.</p><p>LEMMON, J., subscribes to the opinion and will assign additional reasons.<br /><a href="/opinions/2000/99c2132.bjj.pdf">JOHNSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br /></a><a href="/opinions/2000/99c2132.jpv.pdf">VICTORY, J., dissents and assigns reasons&nbsp;</a>.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="text-decoration:underline;"><strong>PER CURIAM&nbsp;</strong></span><strong>:</strong></p><p><a href="/opinions/2000/99ca3344.pc.pdf">1999-CA- 3344 AMY C. KRUGER AND ST. CHARLES 1 LLC v. THE GARDEN DISTRICT </a><a href="/opinions/2000/99ca3344.pc.pdf">ASSOCIATION, ET AL.&nbsp;</a>(Parish of Orleans)<br />Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the trial court's judgment that declared [Title 33] section 2740.38(C) unconstitutional. Having vacated the declaration of unconstitutionality, the only issue on appeal is the propriety vel non of the preliminary injunction. Appellate jurisdiction to decide that issue lies in the court of appeal. La. Const. art. V, &sect;10(A). Accordingly, we transfer this case to the court of appeal for expedited review as a timely filed appeal of the judgment granting the preliminary injunction. During the pendency of the appeal in the court of appeal, the parties are at liberty to move in the trial court for a trial on the merits regarding the permanent injunction, and perhaps coincidently, the declaratory relief sought.<br />JUDGMENT VACATED IN PART AND TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL<br />FOR EXPEDITED APPELLATE REVIEW.</p><p>KIMBALL, J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, &sect;3.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="/opinions/2000/00c0269.pc.pdf">2000-C- 0269 JANET SMITH PERKINS v. GARY W. PERKINS&nbsp;</a>(Parish of Livingston)<br />Upon plaintiff's application, we granted certiorari in this case. Perkins v. Perkins, 00-0269 (LA 1/16/00), ____So.2d____. After hearing oral arguments and reviewing the record of the matter, we conclude that the judgment below does not require the exercise of our supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of February 16, 2000 as improvidently granted, and deny plaintiff's application.</p><p>KNOLL, J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, &sect;3.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p></div>
                </div>

</div>