Doré Energy Corp. v. Bohlinger

|! FITZSIMMONS, Judge,

dissenting with reasons.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmation of the trial court’s writ of mandamus on the basis that DEQ was under a mandatory duty to review Doré’s *299plan. To follow the logic of the majority will result in a state of “Ananda”1 for Doré. Pursuant to the precepts enunciated in La. R.S. 30:2276, DEQ correctly espoused that La. R.S. 30:2276G(1) does not apply to the instant factual scenario because no initial demand by the Secretary of DEQ occurred. The application of both sections 2276G(1) and 2276G(3) is further limited to a situation…