Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

708 So. 2d 1053

State v. Westfall

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided April 24, 1998

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1998-04-24

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1998

1 state decisions

Relies on Clement v. Clement

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-04-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM. *

¶1Writ granted. As an alternative to summoning all concerned parties to a contradictory hearing conducted in open court, the district court shall first provide the district attorney and arresting agency with the opportunity to respond in writing to the allegations of relator’s motion, either conceding that relator is entitled to expungement of one or more of his arrests and waiving the contradictory hearing called for in La.Rev.Stat. 44:9B and La.Rev.Stat. 44:9C, cf La.Ch. Code art. 919C, or denying specifically his allegations. The court shall then provide relator with the opportunity to file a written response to any opposition. If there exist no factual disputes which the presence of the parties, including relator, may help resolve, the district court may conduct the hearing on the pleadings and any supporting documents. See State ex rel. Griffin v. Twenty-First Judicial District Court, 532 So.2d 137 (La.1988).

¶2 Calogero, C.J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.

/708/so2d/1053 · .json · Public domain