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

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · February 19, 2009 · 2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 2238

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9663707

## Case

- **Full name:** Charter School of Pine Grove, Inc. v. St. Helena Parish School Board
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** February 19, 2009
- **Citations:** 2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 2238; 9 So. 3d 209; 2009 La. App. LEXIS 248; 2009 WL 412901
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kuhn
- **Judges:** Welch, Parro, Kuhn, Downing, McClendon
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9663707

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9663707. Public record. Not legal advice.