71°
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
7 Day Forecast
Follow our weather team on social media

Citing case profiled by 2 On Your Side, state Supreme Court voids automatic court delays for lawmakers

1 month 4 weeks 1 day ago Friday, October 25 2024 Oct 25, 2024 October 25, 2024 3:50 PM October 25, 2024 in News
Source: WBRZ

NEW ORLEANS — The Louisiana Supreme Court says lawmakers who are also lawyers are not automatically entitled to delays in court proceedings they're handling — a decision that could impact a Baton Rouge property dispute.

Justices said in a Caddo Parish case that granting lawmakers' certain privileges over the courts' calendars gave them too much power. Its 21-page ruling also made mention of an East Baton Rouge Parish case profiled by WBRZ's 2 On Your Side involving Metro Council member Cleve Dunn.

In its 6-1 decision, the justices directed a Caddo Parish judge to hold a hearing that would address all the cases where continuances involving state lawmakers are still pending, including the one in the 19th Judicial District in Baton Rouge. 

The court specifically mentioned the Baton Rouge lawsuit alleging Dunn encroached on his neighbor's property line. Dunn's lawyer, Rep. Edmond Jordan, filed several motions seeking delays in proceedings last year, noting his legislative obligations.

Ultimately, Eugene Michelli won a $57,703.88 judgment (after Jordan and Dunn didn't show up in court), but the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal reversed it because Jordan had asked for a legislative continuance just hours before the hearing. 

The court said Friday that the delays are not in the interest of justice.

"We conclude that the provisions of (the law) bypass constitutional and statutory powers vested in the judiciary and, in enacting this statute, the Legislature particularly usurps the discretion residing in the judiciary to grant or deny motions for continuance and extensions of fixed court dates, when legislators or legislative employees are concerned in the matter," the court said. 

Rather than aiding the power of courts, the justices said, it actually hurts it. 

Justice Jay B. McCallum dissented, the majority "paints with too broad a stroke." He worried that requiring lawmakers to appear in courts could one day create a constitutional crisis since both the courts and the Legislature can require someone to be in attendance.

More News

Desktop News

Click to open Continuous News in a sidebar that updates in real-time.
Radar
7 Days