182 So. 3d 188
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- DeJohn and Howell qualified as candidates for East Feliciana Parish Coroner in September 2015; Cramer also qualified as a physician-candidate on September 10, 2015.
- The District Attorney filed a Rule to Show Cause objecting to DeJohn and Howell on grounds they are not licensed physicians and that waivers apply only where no licensed physician qualifies.
- Clint Beauchump filed a Rule to Show Cause objecting to Cramer’s candidacy on residency and parish-qualification grounds; the actions were consolidated.
- A hearing occurred on September 21, 2015; the district court denied Beauchump’s challenge to Cramer and disqualified DeJohn and Howell.
- The district court held that Cramer is a Louisiana-licensed physician and that he established residency in East Feliciana Parish, thus disqualifying DeJohn; Beauchump’s residency challenge to Cramer failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residency requirement for Coroner qualification | Beauchump: Cramer did not reside in East Feliciana Parish. | DA: Cramer resided in East Feliciana Parish, satisfying 13:5704(B). | Cramer established residency in East Feliciana Parish; DeJohn’s challenge sustained in error. |
| Prima facie case to disqualify a candidate based on residency | DA: Provided prima facie evidence of Cramer's qualifications, shifting burden to Beauchump. | Beauchump: insufficient evidence that Cramer lacked East Feliciana residency. | District court correctly held Beauchump failed to prove Cramer non-residency; DeJohn’s disqualification sustained. |
| Waiver of physician requirement under 13:5704 | Waiver allowed only if no licensed physician qualifies in parish; Cramer qualifies, so waiver not triggered for DeJohn. | Waiver applies where no physician qualifies; since Cramer is qualified, residency controls. | Waiver did not eliminate physician-qualification barrier; residency determined eligibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landiak v. Richmond, 899 So.2d 535 (La. 2005) (burden and shifting proof in candidacy objections)
- Walsh v. Rogillio, 768 So.2d 653 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2000) (residency versus domicile; modern-life realities)
- Becker v. Dean, 854 So.2d 864 (La.2003) (residency proof considerations in candidacy)
- Russell v. Goldsby, 780 So.2d 1048 (La.2000) (residency analysis for elected offices)
- State, Bd. of Ethics v. Darpy, 937 So.2d 929 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 2006) (burden and standard in disqualification proceedings)