Opinion ID: 1803409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: were la. r.s. 11:103 and 104, as amended, unconstitutionally applied and/or administered

Text: The record on appeal reveals serious questions about how the funding formula for the FRS has been administered in the past. In addition, I agree with the observation of Chief Justice Calogero in his concurring opinion that the funding formula for the FRS, as it is currently structured, places a difficult, if not impossible, burden on firefighters' employers that could easily become insurmountable in coming years.  (Emphasis added). La. C.C. P. art. 1876 provides as follows: The court may refuse to render a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding. After considering how the FRS funding formula was administered in the past, how it is currently structured, and what may be the potential future problems, it is my opinion that a declaratory judgment on this issue will not reasonably terminate the uncertainty or controversy involved. This issue should be decided by a full trial on the merits in an ordinary proceeding; a declaratory judgment on it should not be rendered. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority ruling on this issue.