Opinion ID: 1943838
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal

Text: The threshold issue is whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing defendants'/applicants' appeal on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction. Article 5, § 10(A) of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution provides: (A) Jurisdiction. Except in cases appealable to the supreme court and except as otherwise provided by this constitution, a court of appeal has appellate jurisdiction of all (1) civil matters decided within its circuit and (2) matters appealed from family and juvenile courts, except criminal prosecutions of persons other than juveniles. It has supervisory jurisdiction over cases in which an appeal would lie to it. (Emphasis added) The First Circuit Court of Appeal held that the proceeding to enforce the contempt adjudication was criminal in nature. Since their jurisdiction extends only to civil matters, the appeal was dismissed. For the reasons more thoroughly set forth below in our discussion regarding jurisdiction of the trial court to render a judgment making executory the contempt adjudication and the House of Representatives' right to seek such relief, we hold that the Court of Appeal erred in finding the instant proceeding to be criminal or criminal in nature and that it was therefore without jurisdiction. Normally, upon such a finding we would remand the case to the Court of Appeal to allow that court to review the case on its merits. Shapiro v. Shapiro, 242 La. 903, 139 So.2d 762 (1962); Mataya v. Delta Life Insurance Company, 222 La. 509, 62 So.2d 817 (1953); Buckley v. Thibodaux, 181 La. 416, 159 So. 603 (1935). It is well settled, however, that where this Court grants a writ of certiorari or review, the whole case is before us as if it had been brought here by appeal. E. g., Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Company v. Gifford Hill & Company, 204 La. 929, 16 So.2d 483 (1944). All of the issues on the merits were completely briefed and argued before this Court and all of the parties have requested that we proceed with an opinion on the merits. The historical development of this case convinces us that fairness to the parties and the need for swift judicial determination of the important issues raised by this litigation require this Court to exercise our discretion and render a determination on the merits.