Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Wahlder

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided April 18, 1990No. 88-831Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKing, Judge

I concur in the result reached on rehearing.

I dissent to protest the Supreme Court ordering us to consider an ordinance, not introduced into evidence or judicially noticed at the time of trial, and, therefore, not in the appellate record. In my opinion such an order compels the appellate court to act in violation of La. Const. Art. 5, § 10 (1974), which mandates that the scope of appellate review is limited to facts in the record. Under La.C.C.P. Art. 2164, an appellate court can only render any judgment on appeal which is just, legal, and proper upon the record on appeal.

On proper motion an…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bullock v. Commercial U. Ins. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1981
  2. Klohn v. Louisiana Power & LightSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1981
  3. Barber v. TestaLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1976
  4. City of Eunice v. CLM Equipment Co., Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1987
  5. Hammons v. PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, ETC.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1984

3 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