STUART H. SMITH, RODNEY STEPHENS, DAVID A. VEAZEY, GUADALUPE GAMEZ, AND NEAL LANEY Vs. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, JOHN H. SHIRES, PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FOR UNIT 10, BEAT 100 (P. HARRIS, BADGE 139) (THOMAS, BADGE103) AND C. WILLIAM, BADGE 78), DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND PERMITS, MICHAEL CENTINEO, ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STUART H. SMITH, RODNEY STEPHENS, DAVID A. VEAZEY, GUADALUPE GAMEZ, AND NEAL LANEY * NO. 2010-CA-1464 * COURT OF APPEAL * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR OF * DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, JOHN H. SHIRES, * PARKING ENFORCEMENT ******* OFFICERS FOR UNIT 10, BEAT 100 (P. HARRIS, BADGE 139) (THOMAS, BADGE103) AND C. WILLIAM, BADGE 78), DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND PERMITS, MICHAEL CENTINEO, ET AL. BONIN, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS. I respectfully concur in affirming the judgment in favor of Standard. I specially concur in affirming the judgment in favor of Smith and against the City because we decided the matter on appeal, as the district court should have, on a dispositive non-constitutional ground. See, e.g., La. Municipal Ass’n v. State, 04-0227, p. 34 (La. 1/19/05), 893 So. 2d 809, 836; Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc., 07-0054, p. 6 (La. 5/22/07), 956 So. 2d 583, 588 (“we pay heed to the well-settled precept that courts should refrain from reaching or deciding the constitutionality of legislation unless, in the context of a particular case, the resolution of the constitutional issue is essential to the decision or controversy”).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
