FLOYD SAFFORD v. HAMMERMAN & GAINER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND NEW ORLEANS FIRE DEPARTMENT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #026 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 3rd day of May, 2017, are as follows: PER CURIAM(S): 2016-C-1591 FLOYD SAFFORD v. HAMMERMAN & GAINER INTERNATIONAL, NEW ORLEANS FIRE DEPARTMENT (Office of Compensation, District 8) Accordingly, we recall our order of December 16, improvidently granted, and we deny the writ application. WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons. Page 1 of 1 INC. AND Workers' 2016 as 05/03/2017 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2016-C-1591 FLOYD SAFFORD VERSUS HAMMERMAN & GAINER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND NEW ORLEANS FIRE DEPARTMENT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 8 PER CURIAM We granted defendant’s application for a writ of certiorari in this case on December 16, 2016. After receiving briefing from the parties and reviewing the record of the matter, we conclude the judgment below does not require the exercise of this court’s supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of December 16, 2016 as improvidently granted, and we deny the writ application. 05/03/2017 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2016-C-1591 FLOYD SAFFORD VERSUS HAMMERMAN & GAINER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND NEW ORLEANS FIRE DEPARTMENT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 8 WEIMER, J., dissenting. As a matter of prudent court practice, I disagree with the majority’s decision to recall the writ. I have previously 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]fter 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. 2
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.
