Opinion

Board of Ethics In re Monsour

  • 233 So. 3d 625
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Filed
Jun 21, 2017
Status
Published
Author
Crain
On the bench
Crain, Guidry, McClendon, Pettigrew, Theriot
Cited by
11 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.6%

The opinion

CRAIN, J.,

dissenting in part.

LI agree with the majority’s conclusion that Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 966 and 967 apply to summary judgment proceedings before the Ethics Adjudicatory Board. The EAB thus erred in admitting the exhibits at issue. However, given the uncertainty of the law prior to our ruling, the Board of Ethics, in opposing the motion for summary judgment, reasonably relied on the relaxed evidentia-ry rules otherwise applicable to administrative proceedings. For that reason, I would order the EAB to allow the Board, on remand, to submit evidence pursuant to Articles 966 and 967 prior to a ruling on the motion for summary judgment. See La. Code Civ. Pro. arts. 2082 and 2164; Placid Refining Company v. Privette, 523 So.2d 865, 869-70 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (on rehearing), writ denied, 524 So.2d 748 (La. 1988) (“The court of appeal may remand a case to the trial court for the taking of additional evidence where it is necessary to reach a just decision.”).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.