Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Brown v. Democratic Parish Committee

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided December 3, 1935No. Nos. 33724-33727Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRogers, Justice

I find myself unable to subscribe to the majority ruling maintaining defendants’ plea of prescription. For my part, I think the plea is untenable.

It is stated in the majority opinion that the relators and their attorneys had absented themselves prior to the time the defendant committee reached and announced its conclusions to those who were present in the courthouse. It is true relators and their attorneys were not present when the committee left its consultation room after reaching its conclusions. But their absence was _ not due to any willfulness or carelessness on their part. It was due…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Dunshie v. FieldsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1927
  2. Rousseau v. Democratic Parish Executive CommitteeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API