Baxter v. Scott, 860 So. 2d 535 (La. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Baxter v. Scott, 860 So. 2d 535 (La. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2014–2015 · …it is well settled that courts should not decide abstract, hypothetical or moot controversies, or render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies. at p. 536 ✓
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: La. Homebuilders Ass'n-SIF v. Doctors Hosp. of Slidell, LLC (lactapp, 2018-04-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" La. Homebuilders Ass'n-SIF v. Doctors Hosp. of Slidell, LLC
La. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baxter v. Scott, 03-2013 (La. 11/14/03), 860 So.2d 535 (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Roy v. Bordelon
La. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baxter, 860 So.2d 535 .
discussed Cited "see" Bertrand v. G-Force Transportation, LLC
La. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baxter v. Scott, 03-2013, p. 1 (La.11/14/03), 860 So.2d 535, 536 (wherein the supreme court instructed that “It is well settled that courts should not decide abstract, hypothetical or moot controversies, or render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies.”) However, because these statements were made in brief and at oral argument, there is nothing in the record before us to definitively rule as such.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Travis Pickett v. Lauren Engineers & Construction, Inc.
La. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
App. 1st Cir. 4/ 6/ 18), 248 So. 3d 572, 573 ; see also Baxter v. Scott, 03- 2013 ( La. 11/ 14/ 03), 860 So.2d 535 per curiam) ( a court of appeal errs in rendering an opinion on the merits without acting on a motion to dismiss filed while the matter is pending).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Darden v. Smith
La. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Baxter v. Scott, 37,092 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/16/03), 847 So.2d 225 , vacated on other grounds, 03-2013 (La.11/14/03), 860 So.2d 535 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard L. BAXTER
v.
John L. SCOTT.
2003-CC-2013.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Nov 14, 2003.
860 So. 2d 535
2003 WL 22682736
Per Curiam.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

PER CURIAM.

Following an adverse ruling from the district court on his motion to strike, defendant applied for supervisory relief in the court of appeal. The court of appeal granted the writ and docketed the matter for review. While the case was under advisement, attorneys for plaintiff and defendant filed a "Joint Motion to Dismiss Writ of Certiorari," in which they represented the parties had "amicably resolved their differences in this case" and desired "that the writ of certiorari previously granted herein be recalled and, dismissed as moot." Without acting on the motion to dismiss, the court of appeal rendered an[*536] opinion on the merits. Approximately one week later, the court denied the motion to dismiss as "moot." Plaintiff applied for rehearing, arguing the court of appeal erred in addressing the merits of the case in light of the joint motion to dismiss. The court of appeal denied rehearing, finding the joint motion to dismiss did not comply with Rule 2-8.3 of the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal as it was not "supported by appropriate affidavits that the facts alleged are true and correct." Plaintiff now seeks review of that ruling.

It is well settled that courts should not decide abstract, hypothetical or moot controversies, or render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies. St. Charles Parish School Board v. GAF Corporation, 512 So.2d 1165 (La.1987) (on rehearing). The parties' joint motion put the court of appeal on notice that the dispute between them had been amicably resolved and there was no live controversy for the court of appeal to resolve. While the motion may not have been in full compliance with Rule 2-8.3, the signatures of the parties' attorneys on the motion indicate they represented the facts contained in the motion were true and correct. See, e.g., La.Code Civ. P. art. 863(B) (signature of counsel constitutes certification that the pleading is "well grounded in fact."). In any event, as shown by the filings of the parties in this court, there is no question that the underlying dispute has been resolved.

Under these circumstances, we conclude the court of appeal erred in rendering an opinion on a moot controversy. Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside and the matter is dismissed as moot.

KIMBALL, J., recused.