Opinion ID: 1887830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiff's Constitutional Arguments

Text: In her briefs to the trial court and court of appeal, plaintiff presented alternative arguments that the privilege created by 23 U.S.C. § 409, if applicable to her case, constitutes a violation of the federal and state Constitutions. The trial judge, upon remand by this Court and after conducting the evidentiary hearing, ruled in favor of the DOTD, yet declined to address plaintiffs' constitutional arguments in his reasons for judgment. Because the court of appeal concluded that the trial judge erred in applying the section 409 privilege to plaintiff's case, it was not necessary for that court to reach these constitutional arguments. The plaintiff is entitled to a consideration of these pretermitted constitutional claims. We therefore remand the case to the district court for consideration of these unaddressed constitutional arguments.