Case ID: so2d_656/html/0041-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "liFOIL, Judge. | iKUHN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPPLEMENTAL FUELS, INC. v. The LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
    No. CA 94 1878.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    May 9, 1995.
    William D. Treeby, New Orleans, for appellant plaintiff Supplemental Fuels, Inc.
    Richard A. Curry, Baton Rouge, for appel-lees intervenors Donald M. Hardy, Effie C. Hardy, Marcia Hardy, Warren Berthelot, Noah Berthelot.
    Meredith Hoag Lieux, Ph.D., R. Katherine Long, Baton Rouge, for appellee defendant La. Dept, of Environmental Quality.
    John Shepard, Baton Rouge, for appellee intervenor Atty. Gen. State.
    R. Charles Ellis, New Orleans, for Citizen Groups.
    Before FOIL, WHIPPLE and KUHN, JJ.
   liFOIL, Judge.

Supplemental Fuels, Inc., challenges the action of the trial court in denying its request for de novo review of a decision of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality denying it a permit to operate a hazardous waste facility. The trial court dismissed the petition after finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the challenged action because jurisdiction was vested in this court under La.R.S. 30:20240.

Appellant contends that it is entitled to de novo review of the DEQ determination under La.R.S. 30:2024A(3). However, for the reasons set forth in the companion case decided this day, In the Matter of Supplemental Fuels Inc., 94-1596 (La.App. 1st Cir. 5/9/95); 656 So.2d 29, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. All costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant, Supplemental Fuels, Inc.

AFFIRMED.

KUHN, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

| iKUHN, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for the same reasons stated in my dissent in the companion case of In the Matter Of: Supplemental Fuels Inc., 94-1596 (La.App. 1st Cir. 5/9/95); 656 So.2d 29. Pursuant to La.R.S. 30:2024A, the district court does have the subject matter jurisdiction to conduct the de novo review requested by plaintiff. I would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the matter for further proceedings.