
    ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. STATE of Louisiana, et al.
    NO. 2015-CA-1659
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/05/2016
    LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. Jeffrey Martin Landry, Attorney General, David Jeddie Smith, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; Joan Ellen Hunt; Willa Rebecca Smith; Patricia Hill Wilton; FAIRCLOTH, MELTON AND SOBEL, Brook L. Villa, Christie C. Wood, for Appellant.
    BLACKWELL & ASSOCIATES, Brian Francis Blackwell, Charles Leonard Patin, Jr.; KEAN MILLER, LLP, Randal R. Cangelosi, John Edward Heinrich; HAM-MONDS, SILLS, ADKINS & GUICE, LLP, Robert Lloyd Hammonds, Melissa Sophia Losch; GRANT & BARROW, Michael George Fanning, Glenn David Price, Jr., for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM

The State of Louisiana, the Louisiana State Board of Elementary & Secondary Education, and the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Education lodged this direct appeal pursuant to La. Const. Art. V, § 5(D), seeking review of the district court’s judgment declaring 2010 HRC 243 and 2011 HRC 130 violate La. Const. Art. VIII, § 2(A)(4)(a).

Pretermitting the merits, we find this case fails to present a justiciable controversy upon which relief can be granted. See Council of the City of New Orleans v. Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, 06-1989 (La. 4/11/07), 953 So.2d 798; Hoag v. State, 04-0857 (La. 12/1/04), 889 So.2d 1019; see also St. John the Baptist Parish School Board v. State of Louisiana, 15-0264 (La.App. 1st Cir. 7/12/16) (unpublished), writ denied, 16-1798 (La. 12/5/16), 211 So.3d 390. Accordingly, on our own motion pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 927(B), we recognize the failure of the petition to state a cause of action, vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss the suit.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is vacated and set aside, and the petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Hughes, J., would grant and docket.

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

hi believe matters of great public significance, such as this one, which is related to the funding of public education, merit the state supreme court’s full consideration. On this basis, I would docket this matter for full briefing and argument before rendering a considered opinion.  