La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2024 (2026)

Finality of action; trial de novo; appeals

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§2024. Finality of action; trial de novo; appeals

           A. Any permit action shall be effective upon issuance unless a later date is specified therein. Such action shall be final and shall not be subject to further review unless, no later than thirty days after the notice of the action is served by certified mail or by hand upon the applicant, he files with the secretary a request for hearing.

           B. Upon timely filing of the request, the secretary shall either grant or deny the request within thirty days. If the request for hearing is granted, the issues raised in the request shall be resolved by an adjudicatory hearing before a hearing officer. Any appeal from a final decision of the secretary shall be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2-A of this Subtitle.

           C. If the secretary does not grant the hearing within the time provided for in Subsection B, the applicant shall, within thirty days thereafter, be entitled to file an application for de novo review of the secretary's action in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the parish of East Baton Rouge.

           D. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection A of this Section, with respect to the effectiveness of a permit action, a final decision of the secretary which will result in the practical closing and elimination of a lawful business by either the denial or restriction of a permit shall become effective no sooner than one hundred twenty days after notice of the action is served upon the respondent. In such an instance the existing permit will continue in effect until such decision becomes effective.

           Acts 1983, No. 97,§1, eff. Feb. 1, 1984. Acts 1984, No. 795, §1, eff. July 13, 1984; Acts 1984, No. 825, §1, eff. July 13, 1984; Acts 1990, No. 197, §1, eff. July 2, 1990; Acts 1991, No. 231, §1; Acts 1991, No. 846, §1, eff. July 23, 1991; Acts 1993, No. 567, §1, eff. June 10, 1993; Acts 1995, No. 947, §2, eff. Jan. 1, 1996; Acts 1995, No. 1208, §2, eff. June 29, 1995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases, 1989–2015 · leading case: In Matter of Am. Waste & Pollution Control Co., 642 So. 2d 1258 (La. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Matter of Am. Waste & Pollution Control Co., 642 So. 2d 1258 (La. 1994). · cites it 26× “At the time the permit was granted, the statute provided in pertinent part: § 2024. Finality of action; trial de novo; appeals A.”
Matter of Supplemental Fuels, Inc., 656 So. 2d 29 (La. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 47× “R.S. 30:2024 A, where the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) held an adjudicatory hearing on the merits of the permit application.”
Matter of Am. Waste & Poll. Control, 588 So. 2d 367 (La. 1991). · cites it 15× “R.S. 30:2024. The court of appeal, in these four consolidated cases, has held that La.”
Matter of Am. Waste & Pollution Control, 597 So. 2d 1125 (La. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 18× “R.S. 30:2024, contending that La.R.S. 30:2024 was unconstitutional because it vested jurisdiction to review DEQ actions directly in this court, thereby bypassing the trial court.”
Matter of Rubicon, Inc., 670 So. 2d 475 (La. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 11× “Therein, we were asked to determine whether an amendment to section A of R.S. 30:2024 (currently we are dealing with section C of R.”
In Re Nat. Resources Recovery, Inc., 752 So. 2d 369 (La. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 11× “R.S. 30:2024 commences the running of the prescriptive period.”
Matter of Marine Shale Processors, Inc., 563 So. 2d 278 (La. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 15× “*279 R.S. 30:2024 to hear this appeal, brought by Marine Shale Processors, Inc.”
Matter of Recovery I, Inc., 635 So. 2d 690 (La. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 7× “R.S. 30:2024(C), grant an appeal to this court.”
In the Matter of Am. Waste & Pollution Control Co., 580 So. 2d 392 (La. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 16× “These appeals from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and from the district court [1] involve diverse factual and legal issues. They were consolidated for the purpose of addressing the sole question of whether the procedure for appeal of decisions by the DEQ…”
Matter of Carline Tank Servs., Inc., 627 So. 2d 669 (La. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 7× “R.S. 30:2024 apply in determining the appellate process for decisions of the secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality.”
Louisiana Land Acquisition, LLC v. Louisiana Dep't of Env't Quality, 97 So. 3d 1144 (La. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 30:2024 B. If the applicant’s hearing request is denied, the applicant’s remedy is to file an application for de novo review of the final permit action in the 19th Judicial District Court.”
Louisiana Chem. v. Dept. of Env. Qual., 577 So. 2d 230 (La. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “R.S. 30:2024(C) the district court has no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an action for a declaratory judgment regarding the validity or applicability of rules promulgated by DEQ.”
Show all 38 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2024(0): 2 cases
Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 627 So. 2d 246 (La. Ct. App. 1993).
In re West Pearl River Navigation Proj., 657 So. 2d 640 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2024(A): 7 cases
Matter of Am. Waste & Pollution Control, 597 So. 2d 1125 (La. Ct. App. 1992). “R.S. 30:2024, contending that La.R.S. 30:2024 was unconstitutional because it vested jurisdiction to review DEQ actions directly in this court, thereby bypassing the trial court.”
In Matter of Am. Waste & Pollution Control Co., 642 So. 2d 1258 (La. 1994). “At the time the permit was granted, the statute provided in pertinent part: § 2024. Finality of action; trial de novo; appeals A.”
Matter of Marine Shale Processors, Inc., 563 So. 2d 278 (La. Ct. App. 1990). “*279 R.S. 30:2024 to hear this appeal, brought by Marine Shale Processors, Inc.”
Matter of Marine Shale Processors, Inc., 566 So. 2d 994 (La. Ct. App. 1990).
Matter of Browning-Ferris Ind. Petit Bois, 657 So. 2d 633 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2024(B): 2 cases
Matter of Marine Shale Processors, Inc., 563 So. 2d 278 (La. Ct. App. 1990). “*279 R.S. 30:2024 to hear this appeal, brought by Marine Shale Processors, Inc.”
In Re Shintech, 734 So. 2d 772 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2024(C): 19 cases
In Matter of Am. Waste & Pollution Control Co., 642 So. 2d 1258 (La. 1994). “At the time the permit was granted, the statute provided in pertinent part: § 2024. Finality of action; trial de novo; appeals A.”
Matter of Recovery I, Inc., 635 So. 2d 690 (La. Ct. App. 1994). “R.S. 30:2024(C), grant an appeal to this court.”
Matter of Rubicon, Inc., 670 So. 2d 475 (La. Ct. App. 1996). “Therein, we were asked to determine whether an amendment to section A of R.S. 30:2024 (currently we are dealing with section C of R.”
Louisiana Chem. v. Dept. of Env. Qual., 577 So. 2d 230 (La. Ct. App. 1991). “R.S. 30:2024(C) the district court has no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an action for a declaratory judgment regarding the validity or applicability of rules promulgated by DEQ.”
Matter of Carline Tank Servs., Inc., 627 So. 2d 669 (La. Ct. App. 1993). “R.S. 30:2024 apply in determining the appellate process for decisions of the secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.