Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sommer v. State, Department of Transportation & Development

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided March 29, 2000No. 97-CA-1929Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJjWALTZER, J.

Because the majority opinion in this case ignores positive federal statutory law and jurisprudence of the United States and Louisiana Supreme Courts, I must dissent. Not only is the majority opinion manifestly inconsistent in granting general damages connected to special damages that it finds to have been non-recoverable, it also makes legal history by creating in the Fourth Circuit of Louisiana the only state court jurisdiction within the United States in which a State entity is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I cannot in conscience acquiesce in this state’s court’s…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Quern v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Hafer v. MeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Roberts v. BenoitSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1992
  5. Melancon v. Hyatt Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1991

7 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