LOUISIANA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, EAST BATON ROUGE FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, JEFFERSON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, NELLIE JOYCE MEARIMAN AND KEVIN JOSEPH DEHART v. STATE OF LOUISIANA

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #032 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Per Curiam handed down on the 31st day of May, 2013, is as follows: PER CURIAM: 2013-CA-1088 LOUISIANA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, EAST BATON ROUGE FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, JEFFERSON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, NELLIE JOYCE MEARIMAN AND KEVIN JOSEPH DEHART v. STATE OF LOUISIANA (Parish of E. Baton Rouge) Accordingly, without reaching the merits, we vacate the judgment of the district court. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. WEIMER, J., would grant and docket. 05/31/13 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-CA-1088 LOUISIANA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, EAST BATON ROUGE FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, JEFFERSON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, NELLIE JOYCE MEARIMAN & KEVIN JOSEPH DEHART V. STATE OF LOUISIANA PER CURIAM The State of Louisiana invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this court, pursuant to La. Const. art. V, §5(D), on the ground the district court has declared Act 1 of the 2012 Regular Session unconstitutional. Specifically, the district court ruled the Act violated the single object provision of La. Const. Art. III, § 15(A) and (C). Pretermitting the merits of the appeal, we find the parties and the district court did not have the benefit of our recent opinion in Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State of Louisiana, 13-0120, 13-0232, 13-0350 (La. 5/7/13), __ So. 3d __. Because our opinion clarifies the law in this area, we conclude it would be beneficial to remand the case to the district court for reconsideration of its ruling in light of our opinion, after appropriate briefing and argument by the parties. Accordingly, without reaching the merits, we vacate the judgment of the district court. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

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.