Opinion

Calcasieu League for Environmental Action Now v. Thompson

  • 93 La.App. 1 Cir. 1978
  • 661 So. 2d 143
  • 1995 La. App. LEXIS 2162
  • 1995 WL 418693
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Filed
Jul 14, 1995
Status
Published
Author
Icarter
On the bench
Carter, Fitzsimmons, Foil, Icarter, Parro, Whipple
Cited by
5 cases

The opinion

1 iCARTER, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority opinion that CLEAN has standing to challenge the modified permit. However, I disagree with the majority opinion that the notice given by Conservation was adequate. Conservation’s own rules and regulations clearly specify the requirements for the public notice and the fact sheet. In the instant case, the public notice and fact sheet were procedurally deficient and in contravention of Conservation’s rules and regulations.

Therefore, rather than rendering judgment, I would reverse the trial court judgment finding that Conservation did not have cause to modify the permit. The matter should then be remanded to Conservation to cure the notice deficiencies and conduct a hearing whereby, after proper notice, members of the public are afforded an opportunity to comment on and/or oppose the modification of the permit.

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.