- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Did the state Supreme Court hear the St George case today?
Posted on 1/23/24 at 8:51 pm
Posted on 1/23/24 at 8:51 pm
I can find nothing. What’s the news?
2
Posted on 1/23/24 at 8:54 pm to NorthEnd
They heard oral arguments. Decisions aren't made the same day arguments are heard. Judge Crain seemed to really drill into the attorney for the City who was claiming that the city would lose over 40% of its revenue from St. George despite not providing any of the services it would have to cut to the St. George area.
Posted on 1/23/24 at 9:25 pm to kingbob
Genovese and Crichton were silent.
Hughes and Griffin asked a few questions (Griffin nailed BR's counsel about legacy costs).
McCallum asked a few questions, and really hit City of BR attorney with a killshot about St.G. paying for more than they were getting in the last minute of their argument.
Weimer was clearly not leaning to St.G.
Crain took the lead and was all over the BR attorney.
St.G. had two lawyers. First one (Plaisance) made a standing argument that was pretty weak. Second (Bradford) did well and was effective.
Considering the panel was really hammering him, BR attorney (Furr) did about as well as could be expected.
Hughes and Griffin asked a few questions (Griffin nailed BR's counsel about legacy costs).
McCallum asked a few questions, and really hit City of BR attorney with a killshot about St.G. paying for more than they were getting in the last minute of their argument.
Weimer was clearly not leaning to St.G.
Crain took the lead and was all over the BR attorney.
St.G. had two lawyers. First one (Plaisance) made a standing argument that was pretty weak. Second (Bradford) did well and was effective.
Considering the panel was really hammering him, BR attorney (Furr) did about as well as could be expected.
This post was edited on 1/23/24 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 1/23/24 at 9:32 pm to udtiger
I watched the live stream, but not familiar with overall process. How long before a decision / ruling is announced usually?
Posted on 1/23/24 at 9:34 pm to tigers win2
No set time period for a decision. Considering the issues in this matter, I would be surprised if there's an opinion before May.
Posted on 1/23/24 at 11:26 pm to udtiger
It’s satisfying hearing Furr got his shite pushed in. His arguments were pathetic and the bull shite he spewed to win at the lower courts got exposed. He’s actually trying to disenfranchise the entire city of st. George. Dude shouldn’t ever be hired again by any respectable person in my book. He’s lower than the car wreck attorneys in my book.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 9:45 am to Lickitty Split
I don't get the Advocate rag. Any reporting on the argument?
Posted on 1/24/24 at 10:09 am to NorthEnd
I am blown away this whole thing is even a question.
How can one city tell people that are not even a part of said city that they can't form a city?
How can one city tell people that are not even a part of said city that they can't form a city?
This post was edited on 1/24/24 at 10:13 am
Posted on 1/24/24 at 10:17 am to SG_Geaux
Legally, BR can argue a “disparate impact” from St George incorporating, but one of the SC justices spelled it plain out as “You’re bringing in tax dollar from there but not providing any services.”
They have also argued at least one technical point that the petition was invalid due to the full plan of government not being on it, as opposed to having a URL to it.
The latter one is more splitting hairs and the law being behind the times than anything else.
They have also argued at least one technical point that the petition was invalid due to the full plan of government not being on it, as opposed to having a URL to it.
The latter one is more splitting hairs and the law being behind the times than anything else.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News