Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gorman v. Miller

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided November 13, 2013No. 2012 CA 0412Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKuhn, J.

hi dissent from the proposition posed by the majority that a remand is necessary in this case to achieve “justice.” The plaintiff has filed a suit for damages and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The suit was unanswered, yet the trial court dismissed the suit following a rigorous cross-examination by the trial court itself. When the plaintiff appealed, he was met by a rule to show cause issued by this Court asking him to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. As of this date, this Court has neither disposed of the show cause nor offered any explanation for its issuance.

In…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Rosell v. EscoSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1989
  3. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Gonzales v. Xerox Corp.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1975
  5. Campo v. CorreaSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2002

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API