Case ID: so2d_816/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CALOGERO, C.J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SHELL OFFSHORE, INC., v. The STATE of Louisiana, The State Mineral Board, and the Department of Natural Resources.
    No. 2002-CC-0401.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 19, 2002.
   On Application for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.

CALOGERO, C.J. concurs in the writ denial and assigns reasons.

CALOGERO, C.J.,

concurs in the writ denial and assigns reasons.

I dissented in Leonard v. Parish of Jefferson v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 95-1082 (La.1/16/96), 666 So.2d 1061, because I believed (contrary to the majority) that when the State files a third party demand, that third party defendant ought to have a right to a jury even if that claim must be resolved in a bifurcated trial. La.Rev. Stat. 18:5035 provides that in “[a]ll suits for ... damages ... filed by the state against any person, firm or corporation, and all matters incidental thereto shall be heard and determined by a court in a summary manner ... Should a trial by jury be demanded, a special panel shall be drawn for such purpose.”

However, I would not extend that logic to a case such as this where the State is not asserting a claim against a third party but simply reconvening against the original plaintiff. Here, there is just a singular pair of litigants, and it would be illogical to have separate decision-makers decide the principal demand and reconventional demand.