Lead Opinion
In re: Carl W. Guillory applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, 339 So.2d 970, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides.
Granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. The Court of Appeal correctly construed Connick v. Lucky Pierre’s, 331 So.2d 431 (La.1976).
Dissenting Opinion
is of the opinion the writ should be granted. This court declared unconstitutional R.S. 13:4711 et seq. in Con-nick v. Lucky Pierre’s, 331 So.2d 431 (La. 1976). The Court of Appeal here has determined that R.S. 13:4711 is severable, and in part, still viable. If the Court of Appeal is correct in this regard, we should determine so only after full consideration of this case, and reconsideration of Connick v. Lucky Pierre’s.
Dissenting Opinion
dissents from affirming the Court of Appeal and would grant the writ.
Dissenting Opinion
is of the opinion that the writ should be granted. We should not modify our decision in Connick v. Lucky Pierre’s by adopting the Court of Appeal opinion. The parties should be allowed to brief and argue the issue of whether the portions of the statute found objectionable in Lucky Pierre’s are severable — particularly since this issue was not discussed by the Court of Appeal and may never have been argued by the parties below.