Perry v. Louisiana
Headline: High court vacates a Louisiana trial court’s judgment and sends the case back for reconsideration under a recent ruling, requiring the local court to re-evaluate the matter in light of Washington v. Harper.
Holding: The Court vacated the lower court’s judgment and sent the case back to the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana to reconsider the matter in light of Washington v. Harper.
- Sends the Louisiana trial court to reconsider its judgment under Washington v. Harper.
- Leaves the Supreme Court’s action nonfinal pending lower-court reconsideration.
Summary
Background
An individual sought review in the Supreme Court after a dispute that came from the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana. Counsel for the petitioner and the State of Louisiana argued the case on October 2, 1990, and the Court issued its decision on November 13, 1990. Outside groups, including the American Psychiatric Association and a coalition of ex-patients, filed briefs urging reversal.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether the lower court’s judgment should stand in light of the Court’s recent decision in Washington v. Harper. Rather than decide the case’s underlying merits, the Court issued a per curiam order that vacated the lower court’s judgment and sent the case back to the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana for further consideration in light of Washington v. Harper.
Real world impact
The immediate effect is procedural: the Louisiana trial court must re-evaluate the case applying the guidance from Washington v. Harper. The Supreme Court did not resolve the substantive dispute, so the final outcome for the parties may change after the lower court’s reconsideration. This order is not a final merits decision and leaves the matter to further proceedings in the state trial court.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Souter did not take part in the consideration or decision of the case, and the per curiam order was unanimous among participating Justices.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?