Gongre v. State

| xDOUCET, Chief Judge,

dissenting.

I disagree with the majority opinion herein, and would reverse the judgment of the trial court, finding the ARP inapplicable to the Gongre’s suit.

The majority finds applicable a 1997 amendment to the ARP which refers to causes of action “which arise while an offender is within the custody or under the supervision of the department ” I disagree. That provision did not come into effect until 1997. The Gongres filed suit in 1993. The improper probation revocation occurred in 1991. To apply the provision as amended in 1997 would be to deprive the Plaintiffs of a…