DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of Louisiana SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REPORT To The L O U I S I A N A L E G I S L A T U R E In Response To HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 143 OF THE 2011 REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 2014 HCR143(2011)-0001 C O N T E N T S Page No. I. Introduction and Background 1 II. The Supreme Court House Concurrent Resolution 2 143 Committee III. Activities of the Judicial Council and the Trial Court 4 Committee on Judgeships IV. Consultation with the National Center for State Courts 6 V. The Courts of Appeal 7 VI. The District Courts 17 VII. The City Courts 33 VIII. Conclusion 45 Exhibits: 1. House Concurrent Resolution 143 2. Supreme Court House Concurrent Resolution 143 Committee Roster 3. National Center for State Courts: Presentation on Weighted Caseload/Workload Assessment (January 23, 2104) 4. National Center for State Courts Report: Development of Appellate Court Work Point Values & Examination of Case Complexity (October 2012) 5. National Center for State Courts Report: An Assessment of Louisiana’s Judicial Workload Model (January 2014) 6. Appellate Court Profiles and Workload Data, 2002-2012 7. Appellate Court Work Point Values Project: Project Summary and Recommendations (October 2012) 8. District Court Profiles and Workload Data, 2002-2012 9. City Court Profiles and Workload Data, 2002-2012 HCR143(2011)-0002 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA Report in Response to House Concurrent Resolution 143 (2011 - Representative Rosalind Jones) * * * I. Introduction and Background House Concurrent Resolution 143 (hereinafter HCR 143) requested that the Supreme Court … “conduct a comprehensive study of the caseload data and the number of judges of each appellate court, district court, parish court, and city court in Louisiana to determine changes necessary to the existing structure of the judiciary to provide the most efficient use of judicial resources…” The resolution further requested that the Court consider case filing data, case weights, court structure and finance, and the use of support personnel in this work. HCR 143 is attached to this report as Exhibit 1. The resolution provided for a due date for the report on the courts of appeal and the parish courts by February 15, 2012, and a due date for the report on the district and city courts by February 15, 2014. The Supreme Court submitted its report on the parish courts on February 14, 2012. In that report a summary of the structure, financing, operations, and workload of the state’s three parish courts was provided. It was the Court’s intention to submit a report on the courts of appeal by the February 2012 date in the resolution. The HCR 143 Committee confronted several challenges at the outset of its work, however, regarding the courts of appeal. Chief among these challenges was the fact that the work point values for the courts of appeal needed to be updated. The Court contracted with the National Center for State Courts to review and make recommendations regarding workload calculations for the courts of appeal. That work is discussed in more detail in Section IV below. The report on the courts of appeal is included in this report. This report is organized as follows: An overview of the study process and key activities is provided in parts II through IV. Information regarding the courts of appeal, Page 1 of 51 HCR143(2011)-0003 district courts, and parish courts is provided in parts V, VI and VII, respectively. General findings and recommendations are provided Part VIII. II. The Supreme Court House Concurrent Resolution 143 Committee In the summer of 2011 the Supreme Court appointed a committee to assist it in responding to the resolution. A membership roster for the Committee is attached to this report as Exhibit 2. The Committee was staffed by the Supreme Court Judicial Administrator’s Office. The Committee met throughout the study process. A. Study Process This report is based on the responses of judges to a series of surveys, information obtained during site visits to courts, staff research, testimony received at public hearings, and other activities designed to generate information responsive to the issues raised in the resolution. Surveys - A series of surveys was developed for all of the courts studied. This included a Chief Judge survey requesting information from each chief judge regarding the structure and operations of the individual courts; and an All Judge survey which was sent to all judges (including chief judges) regarding the needs and issues facing their level of court generally. Staff research was conducted to supplement the survey information collected. Responses to the Chief Judge survey were received from all chief judges in each appellate, district, and city court.1 Response rates to the All Judge survey varied, as follows: courts of appeal - 74% of all judges responded; district courts - 62% of all judges responded; city courts - 81% of all judges responded. Response rates to the All Judge survey within courts with more than one judge likewise varied. Site Visits - Site visits were made to certain courts. The purpose of these visits was to gather information regarding operations in the courts and to provide judges with an opportunity to respond to the issues raised in the resolution. Because of their small number, site visits were made to all of the courts of appeal and parish courts. Site visits were made to those district and city courts that requested them. 1 The judge in one of the one-judge city courts was unable to submit a response to the Chief Judge survey. Page 2 of 51 HCR143(2011)-0004 Site visits were made to the following courts: Ascension Parish Court (Gonzales) Jefferson Parish First Parish Court (Metairie) Jefferson Parish Second Parish Court (Gretna) First Circuit Court of Appeal (Baton Rouge) Second Circuit Court of Appeal (Shreveport) Third Circuit Court of Appeal (Lake Charles) Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal (New Orleans) Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal (Gretna) New Orleans First City Court (New Orleans) New Orleans Municipal Court (New Orleans) New Orleans Traffic Court (New Orleans) Nineteenth Judicial District Court (Baton Rouge) Orleans Parish Civil District Court (New Orleans) Orleans Parish Criminal District Court (New Orleans) Orleans Parish Juvenile Court (New Orleans) Public Hearings - With the Supreme Court’s approval, the HCR 143 Committee held two public hearings on the issues raised in the resolution. Both hearings were held at the Louisiana State Capitol. The first hearing was held on October 16, 2013. The second hearing was held on January 23, 2014. Twenty-four individuals testified at the October 2013 hearing. Four individuals represented themselves. The others represented the following entities: Louisiana State Bar Association New Orleans Bar Association New Orleans City Council, Criminal Justice Committee City of New Orleans, Office of the Mayor Bureau of Governmental Research Baptist Community Ministries New Orleans Inspector General Judicial Council of the National Bar Association Clerk of Orleans Parish Criminal District Court “We the People” Louisiana District Judges Association Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Orleans Parish Civil District Court New Orleans First City Court Orleans Parish Juvenile Court Page 3 of 51 HCR143(2011)-0005 New Orleans Traffic Court New Orleans Municipal Court Sixteenth Judicial District Court Six individuals testified at the January 23, 2014 public hearing. These individuals represented the following entities: Judicial Council Trial Court Committee on Judgeships Bureau of Governmental Research Lafayette City Court Louisiana City and Parish Court Judges Association National Center for State Courts The testimony from the National Center for State Courts was accompanied by a presentation regarding judicial workload assessment. This presentation is attached to this report as Exhibit 3. Video of both of the hearings can be accessed at http://senate.la.gov/video/. III. Activities of the Judicial Council and the Trial Court Committee on Judgeships Case weights are one of the items the Legislature requested that the Supreme Court consider in its response to HCR 143. Case weights, known in Louisiana as “work point values,” are used by the Supreme Court’s Judicial Council to assess the need for additional judgeships, a role for the Council that is provided for by statute.2 Through its Trial Court Committee on Judgeships, the Judicial Council maintains work point values for the courts of appeal, district courts, city courts and parish courts, and it has promulgated guidelines regarding their application. Work point values are applied to court filings (dispositions in the courts of appeal) and used, along with other criteria, by the Council in developing recommendations to the Legislature regarding the need for additional judgeships. The application of work point values to filings (dispositions in the courts of appeal) can provide a preliminary indication of judge workload and judgeship need. Considered with 2 See La. R.S. 13:61. Page 4 of 51 HCR143(2011)-0006 other criteria, the product of this application of values to filings (dispositions for the courts of appeal) is a helpful tool that has been used by the Judicial Council for many years to assist the Legislature in deliberations regarding the need for new judgeships. This process has never been used for the purpose of reducing judgeships. In an effort to assist the HCR 143 Committee in its work, at the October 2013 meeting of the Judicial Council the chair of the Council’s Trial Court Committee on Judgeships requested authorization to review
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guide to Judicial Branch
    ’s Legislator Guide to the Judicial Branch January 2007 2 Table of Contents Georgia’s Court System . .4 Supreme Court . .5 Court of Appeals . .7 Superior Court . .8 State Court . .8 Juvenile Court . .9 Probate Court . .10 Magistrate Court . .11 Municipal Court . .11 Georgia Court System (with appellate routes) . .12 Judicial Circuit Map . .13 Judicial Council of Georgia . .14 Judicial Council Budget Developments . .15 Judicial Council Programs . .16 Judicial Council Commissions and Committees . .18 Judge’s Councils . .23 Council of Superior Court Judges . .23 Council of State Court Judges . .24 Council of Juvenile Court Judges . .25 Council of Probate Court Judges . .26 Council of Magistrate Court Judges . .27 Council of Municipal Court Judges . .28 Georgia’s Accountability Courts . .29 Administrative Office of the Courts . .31 3 Georgia's Court System felony offenses, divorce cases and open, independent, n civil matters involving corporations. impartial court system pre- The appellate courts review records serves the fundamental of cases tried in limited and general rights of citizens. Almost all citizens jurisdiction courts to determine if willA come in contact with a court at procedural errors or errors of law that some point in their lives: could have altered the outcome of • to report for jury duty the case were made at trial. The • to settle a traffic ticket Supreme Court of Georgia is the • to testify in court final appellate court in Georgia. • to settle a lawsuit • to probate a family member’s will Managing today’s court operations • to adopt a child requires the expertise of many profes- • to get a divorce, request child sup- sionals other than judges.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Reform, Texas Style
    SMU Law Review Volume 21 Issue 2 Article 3 1967 Court Reform, Texas Style Clarence A. Guittard Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Clarence A. Guittard, Court Reform, Texas Style, 21 SW L.J. 451 (1967) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol21/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. COURT REFORM, TEXAS STYLE by Clarence A. Guittard* R EFORM of the judiciary has been a perennial theme among Texas lawyers. In July, 1918, the Texas Bar Association, meeting at Wich- ita Falls, heard an address by Roscoe Pound on "Judicial Organization"' and adopted the report of a special committee proposing to replace article V of the Constitution of 1876 with a judicial article that would be con- sidered advanced, even by the standards of 1967. The proposal embodied the principles of unification, flexibility of jurisdiction and assignment of judicial personnel, and responsible supervision of the entire system by the supreme court, all as recommended by Pound.! In support of this proposal, the association published a pamphlet point- ing out the need for judicial reform in emphatic terms: The public is in open rebellion. The best of our judges, working in the present machine, cannot always administer justice. The rightful compen- sation of lawyers is enormously decreased, their labors increased, by the intolerable expense, complication, delays and uncertainties inherent in the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana Constitutional Law John Devlin Louisiana State University Law Center
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 48 | Number 2 Developments in the Law, 1986-1987: A Faculty Symposium November 1987 Louisiana Constitutional Law John Devlin Louisiana State University Law Center Repository Citation John Devlin, Louisiana Constitutional Law, 48 La. L. Rev. (1987) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol48/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOUISIANA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW John Devlin* OF REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES, MINERAL RIGHTS AND MAXIMS OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION In this bicentennial year of constitutional celebration and controversial judicial nominations, fundamental questions concerning how courts should go about the task of construing constitutions are much in the air. Such issues of theory and method are as salient, and often as difficult and controversial, when disputed provisions of a state constitution must be construed as they are in the federal context. In two "hard cases" from last term,' State Bond Commissioner v. All Taxpayers,2 and American Lung Association, Inc. v. State Mineral Board,3 the Louisiana Supreme Court wrestled with similar issues of interpre- tation of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution. In both cases, the consti- tutional provisions at issue operated to limit the otherwise plenary powers of the political branches of the state government. In neither case did the plain meaning of the provision's specific terms-"debt" in the former case, "sold" in the latter-necessarily apply to the particular facts at bar, nor in either case did the records of the 1973 constitutional con- vention indicate that the framers ever considered the specific issue pre- sented.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Annual Report
    NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM 2019 ANNUAL REPORT Ontario County Courthouse, Canandaigua, NY. As part of the 2019 Law Day celebration, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks recognized Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the Courts Outside New York City. Judge Coccoma, who held the position for 10 years, stepped down in 2019 and was succeeded by the Hon. Vito C. Caruso. Left to right, Judges DiFiore, Coccoma and Marks. New York State Unified Court System 2019 ANNUAL REPORT Report of the Chief Administrator of the Courts for the Calendar Year January 1 through December 31, 2019 Janet DiFiore Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the State of New York Lawrence K. Marks Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York Associate Judges of the New York State Unified Desmond A. Green Court of Appeals Court System Civil & Criminal Matters, Thirteenth Judicial District Jenny Rivera Hon. Sherry Klein Heitler Chief of Policy and Planning Jeanette Ruiz Leslie E. Stein NYC Family Court Hon. Juanita Bing Newton Eugene M. Fahey Dean, NYS Judicial Institute Tamiko Amaker Michael J. Garcia NYC Criminal Court John W. McConnell Rowan D. Wilson Executive Director, OCA Anthony Cannataro NYC Civil Court Paul G. Feinman Nancy Barry Chief of Operations, OCA Administrative Judges Presiding Justices of the Eileen D. Millett Outside New York City Appellate Division Counsel, OCA Thomas A. Breslin Rolando T. Acosta Sherrill Spatz Third Judicial District First Department Inspector General Felix J. Catena Alan D. Scheinkman Fourth Judicial District Second Department Administrative Judges James P.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Louisiana No. 2000-Ob-1360 Alfreda Tillman Bester Versus Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions Or
    2/21/01 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2000-OB-1360 ALFREDA TILLMAN BESTER VERSUS LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TRAYLOR, J.* The petitioner, Alfreda Tillman Bester, seeks to compel the Committee on Bar Admissions, a body of lawyers created to assist this Court in its constitutionally mandated function of deciding who should be admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, to produce her “conditionally failed” February, 2000 Bar Examination, as well as “model answers” or “grading guidelines” prepared by the members of the Committee on Bar Admissions. This demand squarely implicates our inherent authority to regulate all facets of the practice of law in Louisiana, including the admission of persons to the Bar. Because we exercise plenary, inherent authority in the area of bar admissions, and because at the time the subject bar examination was administered, bar applicants had no right to review their bar examinations, or any right to review the grading guidelines or model answers prepared by Committee Examiners, we deny relief. Facts The petitioner was notified by the Committee on Bar Admissions that she had conditionally failed the February, 2000 Louisiana State Bar Examination. * James Gulotta, Associate Justice Pro Tempore, sitting for Lemmon, J. The petitioner then forwarded a written public records request, asking to view her own bar examination, together with the Committee’s model answers/grading guidelines. The Committee on Bar Admissions, acting through counsel, denied the petitioner’s request. Petitioner then invoked the original jurisdiction of this Court by filing a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Relief .
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Hawaiian Judiciary
    PAPERS- OF THE HAWAIIAN 'HI~TORICAL ~OCIETY . NO.7. THE EVOLUTION OF THE HAWAIIAN JUDICIARY. Presented before the HawaIIan Hlstorloal Society June 29, 181'4, b)' HOIl. W. Frear, Assoolate-Justlce of tihe Supreme COllrt. THE EVOLUTION OF THE HAWAIIAN JUDICIARY. TWO PERIODS OF JUDICIAL HISTORY. The history of the Hawaiian Judiciary may be conveniently divided into two periods: The first, which may be briefly described as the period of absolute government, extending from the earliest migrations of Hawaiians to these shores, say about the fifth century of the Christian Era, to the year 1840; the second, which may be called the period of constitutional govern­ ment, extending from the year 1840 to the present time. Dur­ ing the first of these periods but little progress was made in the evolution of the judiciary. During the second period, as a result of peculiar conditions of political, social and indu8trial change, and the intermingling of the foreign awl aboriginal races, of widely different but gradually assimilating ideas and needs, development has been rapid-until now, for independence, for completeness and simplicity of organization, and for satisfac· tory administration of justice, the Hawaiian Judiciary occupies a high place among the judiciaries of the most advanced nations. FIRST PERIOD TO 1840-No DISTINCT JUDICIARY. During the first period the system of government was of a feudal nature, with the King as lord paramount, the chief as mesne lord and the common man as tenant paravail-gen­ erally three or four and sometimes six or seven degrees. Each held land of his immediate superior in return for military and oth~r services and the payment of taxes or rent.
    [Show full text]
  • Advancements in the Maine Superior Court Nancy Mills Maine Superior Court
    Maine Policy Review Volume 11 | Issue 1 2002 Advancements in the Maine Superior Court Nancy Mills Maine Superior Court Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Mills, Nancy. "Advancements in the Maine Superior Court." Maine Policy Review 11.1 (2002) : 35 -37, https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol11/iss1/8. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. SYMPOSIUM ON JUDICAL REFORM SYMPOSIUM continuing theme in the history Under the project, all civil actions in Advancements of the Maine Superior Court1 is the Cumberland County, except for divorces, effortA by the bench, bar and legislature to are specially assigned upon filing to one in the Maine reduce delay in bringing cases to a final of four Superior Court justices involved resolution. In 1838, a petition to abolish in the project. The assigned justice Superior Court the Court of Common Pleas stated that handles all aspects of the case, including “it is a well known fact that when a case all motions, conferences, discovery By Nancy Mills is entered at the common pleas, it is a rare disputes, trial, and post-judgment matters instance that judgment is obtained in a until final resolution. Each year, the Single shorter time than two years.” In 1868, Justice Assignment Project justices were Governor Joshua Chamberlain advocated each assigned to three two-month terms the creation of the Cumberland County in Cumberland County. Superior Court because of the 2,000 From the justices’ perspective, single actions ready for trial, which could not be justice assignment makes sense for a reached for at least two years.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
    [Show full text]
  • May 17, 2021 Sent Via Email House and Governmental Affairs Committee Louisiana House of Representatives Box 94062 Baton Rouge, L
    New York Office Washington, D.C. Office th 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor 700 14 Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 New York, NY 10006-1738 T. (212) 965 2200 F. (212) 226 7592 T. (202) 682 1300 F. (202) 682 1312 www.naacpldf.org May 17, 2021 Sent via email House and Governmental Affairs Committee Louisiana House of Representatives Box 94062 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Re: Support for Expansion in Louisiana Supreme Court from Seven Single-Member Districts to Nine Single-Member Districts in SB 163 Dear Chairman Stefanski, Vice Chair Duplessis, and Members of the House Governmental Affairs Committee: The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (“LDF”) writes to express our support for the proposal in Senate Bill (“SB”) 1631 to place a constitutional amendment on the October 9, 2021 ballot to expand the size of the Louisiana Supreme Court from seven members to nine members, each elected from one district (“single-member district”).2 However, we believe that implementation of this expansion should not be delayed until 2025, as currently proposed in SB 163. It is critical that Louisiana’s communities of color are fairly represented on the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Louisiana Supreme Court has expansive jurisdiction to review judgments of the courts of appeal in every civil and criminal action filed in state court in Louisiana, which is where the vast majority of cases are heard.3 In civil cases, the Supreme Court has plenary authority to review not only legal conclusions, but also may review factual conclusions.4 The decisions made by the Louisiana Supreme Court have profound consequences for all Louisianans and have the potential to affect every aspect of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Louisiana Office of the Judicial Administrator 400 Royal Street, Suite 1190 New Orleans, La 70130-8101
    SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR 400 ROYAL STREET, SUITE 1190 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130-8101 RFP LASC-2018-03 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TRAINING CONSULTANT FOR THE LOUISIANA PROTECTIVE ORDER REGISTRY ___________________________________________________________________________ I. PURPOSE The Supreme Court of Louisiana, Office of the Judicial Administrator (“Court”) invites qualified Court and Community Liaison in Louisiana to submit proposals to serve as an independent training consultant to the Louisiana Protective Order Registry (“LPOR”). II. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals must be received no later than 4:00 p.m. (CST) on Monday, November 12, 2018. Proposals may be submitted electronically via e-mail or secure file upload or may be submitted in paper format (with one original and three copies required). Proposals should be sent to the following address: The Supreme Court of Louisiana Office of the Judicial Administrator 400 Royal Street, Suite 1190 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-8101 Attn: Caitlin Morgenstern Email: [email protected] Any proposals received after this deadline will not be considered. All envelopes containing a paper proposal must bear the name of the entity making the proposal, and must have the following clearly written or typed on the face of the envelope: 2018 Proposals for Training Consultant for the Louisiana Protective Order Registry. All questions relative to this request for proposals (“RFP”) should be directed to Caitlin Morgenstern who may be reached via telephone at (504) 310-2550 or via e-mail at [email protected]. All questions should be submitted by 4:00 p.m. (CST), on Thursday, October 25, 2018. The preferred method of receiving questions is via e-mail.
    [Show full text]
  • State Supreme Court Sits at University of Louisiana at Monroe
    A Newsletter of the Judiciary of the State of Louisiana Volume 6, No. 1 Spring 2003 State Supreme Court Sits at University of Louisiana at Monroe The Louisiana Supreme Court heard oral ar- guments on four pending cases on April 7 at the University of Louisiana at Monroe (ULM). Six jus- tices held proceedings at ULM as part of an ongo- ing effort by the Court to educate and to inform students and the general public about the work of the Court. “For over 15 years, holding court in venues other than the Supreme Court courthouse has been a tra- dition of the Court. The goal is to provide citizens with a snapshot of the volume, variety and com- plexity of the Court's caseload by bringing the Loui- siana Supreme Court to them,” said Chief Justice Pascal F. Calogero, Jr. Prior to oral arguments, Justice Chet D. Traylor, a 1969 graduate of Northeast Louisiana State Uni- versity, now known as ULM, welcomed the high school and university students in attendance in ULM's Brown Auditorium. Justice Traylor was Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Chet D. Traylor, elected in 1996 to the Fourth Supreme Court Dis- a ULM alumnus and a native of nearby Colum- trict which includes Monroe. bia, La., announces the Court’s sitting at ULM. According to Justice Traylor, “The Supreme Photo courtesy of ULM Court's decision to hold court at ULM is an historic and momentous event for the people of northeast Louisiana. The last time the Supreme Court sat in Monroe was June 1894. The people of Louisiana need to know that this is their Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Weimer Elected to Supreme Court
    A Newsletter of the Judiciary of the State of Louisiana Volume 4, No. 4 Fall/Winter 2001 Weimer Elected to Supreme Court On December 17, 2001, Judge John L. Weimer was sworn-in as Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court, Sixth District, at an induction ceremony at Nicholls State University, Talbot Auditorium, in Thibodaux, Louisiana. The oath of office was administered by Daniel A. Cavell, his brother-in-law and an attorney from Thibodaux. Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Pascal F. Calogero, Jr. and Retired Sixth District Justice Harry T. Lemmon, Justice Weimer’s predecessor, provided remarks welcoming Weimer to the Supreme Court bench. Justice Weimer, 47, was born in Thibodaux and graduated from Thibodaux High School. He received a B.S. degree in 1976 from Nicholls State Univer- sity, graduating with academic honors, and his Juris Doctor degree from Louisiana State University in Justice John L. Weimer 1980. Prior to his election to the Supreme Court, th Justice Weimer served as Judge of the 17 Judicial th st sity 50 Anniversary Golden Graduate Award; Who’s District Court 1995-1998, and Judge of the 1 Cir- Who Among American Teachers, and the Nicholls cuit Court of Appeal, District 1, Division B from State University Presidential Award for Teaching Ex- 1998 to the present. cellence. In 2000 Justice Weimer was recognized For fifteen years, 1980-1995, Justice Weimer was for the significant assistance he provided in estab- an attorney in the private practice of law. He was lishing the Lafourche Parish Drug Treatment Court. also both an Adjunct Professor of Law and a Profes- Justice Weimer is completing the unexpired sor of Law at Nicholls State University during the term due to the early retirement of Justice Lemmon.
    [Show full text]