Opinion

Charter School of Pine Grove, Inc. v. St. Helena Parish School Board

  • 2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 2238
  • 9 So. 3d 209
  • 2009 La. App. LEXIS 248
  • 2009 WL 412901
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Filed
Feb 19, 2009
Status
Published
Author
Kuhn
On the bench
Welch, Parro, Kuhn, Downing, McClendon
Cited by
21 cases

recognizing that “[t]he trial court has great discretion to grant or deny injunctive | ¡¡relieve, and its determination should not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse or discretion”

How later courts described this case

  • recognizing that “[t]he trial court has great discretion to grant or deny injunctive | ¡¡relieve, and its determination should not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse or discretion”
  • "The remedy of mandamus is not available to command performance of an act that contains any element of discretion, however slight."
  • “Under Louisiana's civil law system, specific performance is the preferred remedy for” a state law claim for “breach of contract.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

KUHN, J.,

concurring.

li Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:3972 A sets forth the legislative intent in enacting the “Charter School Demonstration Programs Law,” La. R.S. 17:3971 et seq. As set forth in Section 3972 A, it is the legislature’s stated purpose to authorize experimentation by parish school boards “by authorizing the creation of innovative kinds of independent public schools,” with the express intention that “the best interests of at-risk pupils shall be the overriding consideration in implementing the provisions of this Chapter.” With that interest in mind, I concur to point out that the provisions of La. R.S. 17:3983(A)(4)(d) do not provide a basis for terminating a valid contract, whose objective has been frustrated by one of the parties. To allow the St. Helena Parish School Board, a signatory to the Charter School Agreement, to engage in delay tactics and then find merit in their contention that the time limits of Section 3983(A)(4)(d) have not been met, would seriously undermine the legislature’s intent in enacting this Chapter for the purpose of providing alternative learning environments to benefit educators, students, and the public. The majority prop *227 erly rejects the Board’s arguments in this respect.

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.