Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
_________________________________________________________________
CIVIL
__________________________________________________________________
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
______________________________
GREGORY R. AYMOND
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Post Office Drawer 5503
3229 Industrial Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71307
Tele: (318) 445-3618
Fax: (318) 448-6133
Bar Role No.: 17,449
Attorney for Richard J. Heath
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Authorities.................................................................................. ii
Conclusion................................................................................................ 2
Certificate of Service................................................................................ 3
Exhibits
Order............................................................................................... 18-19
i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION
LSA-R.S. 44:35........................................................................................... 1
STATE CASES
ii
ARGUMENT and LAW
Despite what counsel for the City of Alexandria would have you believe,
the City of Alexandria was held by this Court to have violated the Public Records
Law. See: Heath v. City of Alexandria, 11 So.3d 569 (La. App. 3rd Cir., 2009).
The Appellee’s brief cited Cobb v. Louisiana Board of Institution, 111 So.
2d 126 (La. 1959), for the proposition that any provision of a statute which
mandates a city to pay a judgment is unconstitutional. That case dealt with the
payment of damages in tort and is totally distinct from an attorney fee award for
That case was also decided before the 1974 Louisiana Constitution.
General into the lawsuit and did not even plead the unconstitutionality of LSA-
R.S. 44:35 and its attorney fee provisions for the violation of the Public Records
Law.
The vast majority of the other cases cited by the City of Alexandria does not
even address the graveman of this issue. This Court must decide whether
Louisiana Constitution Article XII § 10(C) takes precedence over the provisions
1
of Article XII § 3 and its recognition of our Public Records Law.
This Court is called upon to answer the question of does the Court’s award
The Appellee puts the cart before the horse on these issues. It argues that,
since the Trial Court was correct in its judgment, it did not have to follow the
It is submitted that the Trial Court still had to follow the Code of Civil
Procedure and the Code of Evidence to hear all of the testimony before it ruled
herein.
CONCLUSION
It is for the above reasons that the original arguments made in the brief of
the Plaintiff-Appellant should be followed and that there be judgment in his favor.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
______________________________
GREGORY R. AYMOND
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Post Office Drawer 5503
3229 Industrial Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71307
Tele: (318) 445-3618
Fax: (318) 448-6133
Bar Role No.: 17,449
Attorney for Richard J. Heath
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
________________________________
GREGORY R. AYMOND