Opinion
NO. 2022 CA 1203
07-14-2023
Mary O. Pierson, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Brett Furr, John P. Murrill, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Larry A. Bankston, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees, Mayor-President Sharon Weston Broome and LaMont Cole Sherri Morris, Christina B. Peck, Evan P. Fontenot, D. Stephen Brouillette, Jr., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, James L. Bradford, III, Covington, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendants/1 st Appellants, Chris Rials and Norman Browning Mark D. Plaisance, Marcus J. Plaisance, Prairieville, Louisiana, Counsel for 2 nd Appellant, Dwight Hudson, et al.
Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court, In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, Case No. C690041, The Honorable Martin E. Coady, pro tem, Judge Presiding
Mary O. Pierson, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Brett Furr, John P. Murrill, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Larry A. Bankston, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees, Mayor-President Sharon Weston Broome and LaMont Cole
Sherri Morris, Christina B. Peck, Evan P. Fontenot, D. Stephen Brouillette, Jr., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, James L. Bradford, III, Covington, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendants/1st Appellants, Chris Rials and Norman Browning
Mark D. Plaisance, Marcus J. Plaisance, Prairieville, Louisiana, Counsel for 2nd Appellant, Dwight Hudson, et al.
BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND MILLER, JJ.
THERIOT, J.
2Chris Rials and Norman Browning ("Incorporators"), along with Dwight Hudson and various electors from the proposed area to be incorporated as the City of St. George ("Electors"), appeal from a judgment of the trial court denying the incorporation of the City of St. George after a full trial on the merits. On appeal, Incorporators asserted exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action. Also, on appeal, Electors asserted an exception of no cause of action. For the following reasons, we sustain in part and overrule in part Incorporators’ exception of no right of action and dismiss plaintiff-appellee Mayor-President Sharon Weston-Broome from the suit with prejudice, overrule Incorporators’ exception of no cause of action as untimely, and dismiss Electors’ exception of no cause of action. Additionally, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the incorporation.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY