Court Opinion

ID: 9874999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:21:54.870847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:55.529903
License: Public Domain

WEIMER, J.,
dissenting.
ItAs a matter of prudent court practice, I disagree with the majority’s decision to recall the writ. I havepreviously. explained:
In the past, I have voted to recall writs, but I have come to the conclusion this is a poor ’practice. See State v. Crandell, 05-1060 (La. 3/10/06), 924 So.2d 122 (Weimer, J., dissenting: “[A]f-*947ter having granted the writ, the unique facts and circumstances of this case dictate that we should resolve this matter on the merits.”). As a more recent example of my view, see Davis v. Prescott, 13-0669 (La. 11/5/13), 130 So.3d 849, 851 (Weimer, J., dissenting: “I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to recall the writ. Having granted the writ, I would resolve this case on the merits based on the issues and the record before this court.”).
George v. Dugas, 16-0710, p. 2 n.1 (La. 11/7/16), 203 So.3d 1043, 1043 n.1 (Weimer, J., dissenting).
After this court granted the writ in this matter, the parties have researched the issues, prepared briefs, and attended oral argument-all no doubt done at considerable expense in time, effort, and financial resources. Considering all this was done at this court’s direction after granting the writ, I believe -the parties deserve and are entitled to an answer on the merits from this court. Thus, I respectfully dissent from the decision .to recall the writ.