Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Cox v. Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided March 11, 1994No. 93 CA 0420Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
hGONZALES, Judge,
concurring in part, and dissenting in part.
In dissenting, I first point out that on the first appeal of this case, Cox v. Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, 597 So.2d 20 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992), this court improperly remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of whether Cox was entitled to the exemption in La.R.S. 3:4215(B). The remand should have been made to the administrative agency which is the original trier of fact and the “court” of record in this matter.
Secondly, although I concur with the finding that Cox was not entitled to the exemption…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Save Ourselves, Inc. v. La. Environ. Cont. Com'nSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1984
- Matter of American Waste & Poll. ControlSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1991
- Matter of Carline Tank Services, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1993
- Matter of McGowanLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1988
- Salicos v. Louisiana State Racing CommissionLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.