separation of powers doctrine in Louisiana

2016In Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 , the state appealed a judgment of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court holding that the Habitual Offender Statute, La.R.S. 15:529.1, was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers clause of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution.

1995In State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) the court reversed a judgment of the trial court which had declared the Habitual Offender Statute unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers clause in the Louisiana constitution.

2013In concluding that it was prohibited from awarding attorney fee expenses to plaintiff, the court of appeal cited Gongre v. Mayor and Bd. of Aldermen of Town of Montgomery, 98-677 (La.App. 3d Cir.10/28/98), 721 So.2d 968 , writ denied, 98-2954 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 834 , and Landry v. City of Erath, 628 So.2d 1178 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993), writ denied, 94-0275 (La.3/25/94), 635 So.2d 235 , each of these cases finding a violation of the separation of powers doctrine when a court orders a governing body to appropriate money when there is no statutory duty to do so.

2001In concluding that it was prohibited from awarding attorney fee expenses to plaintiff, the court of appeal cited Gongre v. Mayor and Bd. of Aldermen of Town of Montgomery, 98-677 (La.App. 3d Cir.10/28/98), 721 So.2d 968 , writ denied, 98-2954 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 834 , and Landry v. City of Erath, 628 So.2d 1178 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993), writ denied, 94-0275 (La.3/25/94), 635 So.2d 235 , each of these cases finding a violation of the separation of powers doctrine when a court orders a governing body to appropriate money when there is no statutory duty to do so.

2013In concluding that it was prohibited from awarding attorney fee expenses to plaintiff, the court of appeal cited Gongre v. Mayor and Bd. of Aldermen of Town of Montgomery, 98-677 (La.App. 3d Cir.10/28/98), 721 So.2d 968 , writ denied, 98-2954 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 834 , and Landry v. City of Erath, 628 So.2d 1178 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993), writ denied, 94-0275 (La.3/25/94), 635 So.2d 235 , each of these cases finding a violation of the separation of powers doctrine when a court orders a governing body to appropriate money when there is no statutory duty to do so.

2001In concluding that it was prohibited from awarding attorney fee expenses to plaintiff, the court of appeal cited Gongre v. Mayor and Bd. of Aldermen of Town of Montgomery, 98-677 (La.App. 3d Cir.10/28/98), 721 So.2d 968 , writ denied, 98-2954 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 834 , and Landry v. City of Erath, 628 So.2d 1178 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993), writ denied, 94-0275 (La.3/25/94), 635 So.2d 235 , each of these cases finding a violation of the separation of powers doctrine when a court orders a governing body to appropriate money when there is no statutory duty to do so.

2013In concluding that it was prohibited from awarding attorney fee expenses to plaintiff, the court of appeal cited Gongre v. Mayor and Bd. of Aldermen of Town of Montgomery, 98-677 (La.App. 3d Cir.10/28/98), 721 So.2d 968 , writ denied, 98-2954 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 834 , and Landry v. City of Erath, 628 So.2d 1178 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993), writ denied, 94-0275 (La.3/25/94), 635 So.2d 235 , each of these cases finding a violation of the separation of powers doctrine when a court orders a governing body to appropriate money when there is no statutory duty to do so.

2002App. 3 Cir.1993), writ denied, 94-0275 (La.3/25/94), 635 So.2d 235 , each of these cases finding a violation of the separation of powers doctrine when a court orders a governing body to appropriate money when there is no statutory duty to do so.

2013In concluding that it was prohibited from awarding attorney fee expenses to plaintiff, the court of appeal cited Gongre v. Mayor and Bd. of Aldermen of Town of Montgomery, 98-677 (La.App. 3d Cir.10/28/98), 721 So.2d 968 , writ denied, 98-2954 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 834 , and Landry v. City of Erath, 628 So.2d 1178 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993), writ denied, 94-0275 (La.3/25/94), 635 So.2d 235 , each of these cases finding a violation of the separation of powers doctrine when a court orders a governing body to appropriate money when there is no statutory duty to do so.

2001In concluding that it was prohibited from awarding attorney fee expenses to plaintiff, the court of appeal cited Gongre v. Mayor and Bd. of Aldermen of Town of Montgomery, 98-677 (La.App. 3d Cir.10/28/98), 721 So.2d 968 , writ denied, 98-2954 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 834 , and Landry v. City of Erath, 628 So.2d 1178 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993), writ denied, 94-0275 (La.3/25/94), 635 So.2d 235 , each of these cases finding a violation of the separation of powers doctrine when a court orders a governing body to appropriate money when there is no statutory duty to do so.

2013In Carriere, 707 So.2d at 982 , this court did recognize the separation of powers principle, which limits a court’s power to place the responsibility of funding state officials on parishes unless a clear legislative mandate exists compelling such funding.

2002In Carriere, 707 So.2d at 982 , this court did recognize the separation of powers principle, which limits a court's power to place the responsibility of funding state officials on parishes unless a clear legislative mandate exists compelling such funding.

2026The majority’s decision, however, allows the judiciary to intrude upon powers constitutionally reserved to each of the other branches–the Legislative and Executive branches–in clear violation of our system of separated powers. 2 Among the authority vested in the legislature is the exclusive control of public funds,1 as was acknowledged in Hoag v. State, 04-0857, p. 8 (La. 12/1/04), 889 So. 2d 1019, 1024 , (our Constitution “grants sole authority to the legislature to control the funds of this state and to appropriate funds within its control.”).

2013Separation of powers Relying heavily on Hoag v. State, 04-0857 (La.12/1/04), 889 So.2d 1019 , the City argues that it “cannot be judicially ordered to expend funds outside of the normal budgetary process” and that the trial court’s issuance of a mandamus violates the separation of powers doctrine.

2026While the separation of powers doctrine is “clearly and emphatically expressed in the Louisiana Constitution and must be maintained to its full extent,” we have observed that “the exact line between judicial and legislative powers has never been delineated with absolute precision.” State v. Umezulike, 03-1404, p. 4 (La. 2/25/04), 866 So.2d 794, 797 .

2026We observed that Louisiana Const. art. 1, §5 “does not specifically require that a warrant shall be issued by a judge.” Id., 03-1404, p. 6, 866 So. 2d at 799 .

2014Miller, 857 So.2d at 427 .

2007Miller , 03-206 at p. 5, 857 So.2d at 427 .

2012(See Wardins v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 , 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973), and as to the separation of powers doctrine, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 17; La.

2012(See Wardins v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 , 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973), and as to the separation of powers doctrine, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 17; La.

2003Rodriguez, 379 So.2d at 1085 ; All Pro Paint, 639 So.2d at 711 ; Taylor, 479 So.2d at 341 ; Broom, 439 So.2d at 367 .

1995State v. Taylor, 479 So.2d 339 (La.1985); LSA-R.S. 14.7 [sic].

2003Meredith, 700 So.2d at 481 ; Ieyoub ex rel.

1998The trial court ruled that the contract is a valid and constitutional exercise of the Attorney General's discretionary power to file suit civilly on behalf of the State, and the contract does not violate Article VII, § 9 of the Louisiana Constitution requiring immediate deposit into the state treasury of all state funds upon receipt. *1229 Because we find that the contract violates the separation of powers principle embodied in Article II, § 1 of the Louisiana Constitution, as explained in Meredith v. Ieyoub, 96-1110 (La.9/9/97); 700 So.2d 478 , we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

2002There, we further elaborated on the separation of powers doctrine, holding that "[e]xcept as expressly provided by the constitution, no other branch of government, nor any person holding office in one of them may exercise the legislative function." Id.

1997There, we further elaborated on the separation of powers doctrine, holding that "[e]xcept as expressly provided by the constitution, no other branch of government, nor any person holding office in one of them, may exercise the legislative function." Id.

1990This court held that the Governor's power to appoint legislators to the Committee did not constitute the power to make laws and did not so influence the law-making process as to constitute an indirect exercise of legislative powers. [5] In this respect the present case is similar to the situation in Guste v. Legislative Budget Committee, 347 So.2d 160 (La.1977), which involved the Governor's power of appointment of a majority of the members of a committee which performed legislative functions.

1989The court noted, however, that although it was not an issue in their case, "the principle of Buckley v. Valeo would invalidate a statute creating a committee to perform functions exclusively executive when the legislature named the members of the committee." Guste, 347 So.2d at 164 , f.n. 5.

2026As this court recognized in State v. Lanclos, Article 2 establishes “the basis for the recognition of inherent powers in the judicial branch which the legislative and the executive branches cannot abridge.” State v. Lanclos, 07-82, p. 11 (La. 4/8/08), 980 So.2d 643, 651 .

2026Id. at 342 .

2024Louisiana Dep’t of Agric. & Forestry v. Sumrall, 98-1587, pp. 12-13 (La. 3/2/99), 728 So. 2d 1254 , 1263.

2023SWB relies on Newman Marchive Partnership v. City of Shreveport, 07- 1890 (La. 4/08/08), 979 So.2d 1262 , for the general premise that the separation of powers doctrine prohibits issuing mandamus ordering seizure of public assets in satisfaction of money judgments.

2018The one case cited in a separate concurrence to the majority opinion for the proposition that courts are empowered to alter sentences is State v. Mayeux , 01-3195, (La. 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 526 .

2012At the same time and in the same hearing, the trial-court judge also sustained similar defense motions in five other unrelated cases. 1 At the time of the ruling, the defense relied upon the decision of State v. King, 10-074 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/29/10) , 48 So.3d 1288 .

2012In Batiste , 05-1571, p. 8; 939 So.2d at 1251 , the Court held that the state did not flaunt its authority at the expense of the defendant when it used its power to dismiss and reinstituted charges against him: Under the specific facts presented by this case, we find the district court abused its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to quash the bill of information.

2012Louisiana courts have found neither claim suffices for the requisite showing of "specific prejudice to his right to a fair trial.” Hayes, 10-1538, p. 10, 75 So.3d at 15 ; see also King, 10-2638, p. 8, 60 So.3d at 620 . .

2008Johnson, 383 U.S. at 178 , 86 S.Ct. at 754 ; See also Copsey, 593 So.2d at 688 .

2008Johnson, 383 U.S. at 178 , 86 S.Ct. at 754 ; See also Copsey, 593 So.2d at 688 .