Theresa Fisher v. Steven Harter, Jr., 395 So.3d 806

The plaintiff, Theresa Fisher, was involved in a car accident with defendant Steven Harter, Jr.; Harter’s father and insurer were also named as defendants.
The trial court issued a partial summary judgment finding Steven Harter, Jr. at fault and dismissed defendants' comparative or third-party fault defenses.
During litigation, two defense attorneys who also served as Louisiana legislators repeatedly obtained postponements of hearings using La. R.S. 13:4163, which mandates courts grant continuances to legislators without discretion.
Fisher challenged the constitutionality of La. R.S. 13:4163, arguing it deprived her of her day in court and usurped judicial authority.
The district court upheld the statute's constitutionality, and the appellate court denied further review; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari.
On review, the Supreme Court declared La. R.S. 13:4163 unconstitutional, reversed the lower court, and required that all contested continuance motions be heard contradictorily in line with standard procedure.

Issue	Fisher's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Constitutionality of mandatory legislative continuance statute	R.S. 13:4163 usurps judicial power and removes court discretion, violating separation of powers and due process.	Statute is a valid legislative enactment to enable legislators to serve; does not violate separation of powers.	Statute is unconstitutional; it strips courts of inherent power to control their docket.
Impact on right to access courts/due process	Unlimited, unilateral continuances can indefinitely deny plaintiff's access to trial and a prompt adjudication.	Only permits temporary delays during legislative sessions, does not deny access.	Unconstitutional because it creates potential for indefinite delay and denies fair process.
Equal protection—favoritism to legislator-attorneys	Gives legislator-attorneys special privilege, discriminates against other parties and counsel.	Not discriminatory; ensures legislators can fulfill civic duties.	Unconstitutional as it grants improper privilege not justified by legitimate state interest.
Whether court discretion required for continuances	Statute’s use of “shall” overrides courts’ discretion and controlling civil procedure rules.	Statute rationally allows peremptory grounds for good cause (legislative duties).	Court discretion is required; mandatory grant of continuance impermissible.

Singer Hutner Levine Seeman & Stuart v. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n, 378 So.2d 423 (La. 1979) (courts uphold legislative acts aiding inherent judicial power, but strike down those undermining it)
Succession of Wallace, 574 So.2d 348 (La. 1991) (affirming courts’ inherent power and rejection of legislative encroachment)
Kingfish Asset Mgmt., LLC. v. Bultman, 370 So.3d 441 (La. 2023) (trial courts have broad discretion in granting or denying continuances)
Vaiden v. Abney, 7 La. Ann. 575 (1852) (finding no limitation on continuances could lead to endless litigation)
Konrad v. Jefferson Parish Council, 520 So.2d 393 (La. 1988) (doctrine of inherent judicial power encompasses control over court business)