Writ application granted. See per curiam.
PDG
JDH
SJC
JTG
JBM
Supreme Court of Louisiana June 05, 2024
06/05/2024 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2023-CC-01541 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS VS. EDWARD WISNER DONATION, ET AL. On Supervisory Writ to the Orleans Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil PER CURIAM Granted. The application is remanded to the court of appeal for review on the merits in light of our opinion in Council of City of New Orleans v. Edward Wisner Donation, 2023-01106 (La. 3/22/24), 382 So. 3d 27. Respondents’ motion to dismiss is denied.
Finding the writ application untimely pursuant to Supreme Court Rule X, § 5, I must respectfully dissent.
The court of appeal denied the Councils writ application on June 15, 2023, and rehearing was denied on October 26, 2023. The Councils writ application was filed in this court on November 22, 2023. Supreme Court Rule X, § 5(a) provides that an application filed in this court may be taken within 30 days of the denial of an application for rehearing in the court of appeal “in those instances where a rehearing is allowed.” A rehearing from a writ denial is not allowed. See Rule 2-18.7, Uniform Rules–Court of Appeal. Thus, the date of the court of appeals denial of rehearing in this case is irrelevant to determine whether the Councils writ application was timely filed. Although the Council filed its application in this court within thirty days of the court of appeals action on rehearing, it was filed more than thirty days from the June 15, 2023 writ denial and is therefore untimely. See also State v. Crandell, 05-1060, p. 3 (La. 3/10/06), 924 So.2d 122, 125 (“Defendants writ application in this court was filed ․ more than thirty days after the court of appeals denial of his application. Although defendants application in this court was filed within thirty days of the court of appeals denial of rehearing, the application was untimely filed because a rehearing of the court of appeals writ denial was not allowed. Accordingly, the delay for seeking review by this court began to run from the mailing of the notice of the court of appeals writ denial, not from its denial of rehearing.”)
Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer.