Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cunningham v. Marullo
Citations: 150 So. 3d 21; 2014 La.App. 4 Cir. 0931; 2014 La. App. LEXIS 2078; 2014 WL 4365205Docket: No. 2014-CA-0931
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; September 3, 2014; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
On August 25, 2014, Marian Cunningham, Lisa Amoss, and Robert Amoss filed a Petition Objecting to Candidacy, contesting Frank Marullo's qualifications to seek reelection as judge of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. They based their challenge on two grounds: first, that Marullo, at age 74, was ineligible under Article V, §23(B) of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution; second, that if the 1921 Louisiana Constitution applied, he must retire under Article VII, §8(B) since he would turn 75 before the new term. The district court held a hearing on August 29, 2014, and ultimately denied the petition, ruling Marullo qualified to run for reelection. The court concluded that Marullo's rights under the 1921 Constitution were preserved under the 1974 Constitution, as he had not yet reached 75. This decision relied on the precedent set in Giepert v. Wingerter, 531 So.2d 754 (La.1988). Marullo, born December 31, 1939, will turn 75 on December 31, 2014, and was appointed to his current position in 1974, having last been elected in 2008. His current term ends on December 31, 2014, and he qualified for the November 4, 2014, election on August 20, 2014. The appeal focused on whether he was properly qualified for the upcoming election, with the court noting that under the Louisiana Election Code, a candidate must meet the qualifications at the time of qualification. The qualifications for a district court judge, as per Article V, §24 of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution, include one year of domicile in the relevant district and at least eight years of legal practice. Judge Marullo satisfied these requirements, and the Appellants did not dispute these facts. Any individual qualified under Article V, Section 24 can run for district court judge without age restrictions; the question of mandatory retirement age is separate. If Judge Marullo were not a sitting judge and had practiced law for at least eight years, he would be eligible for the November 2014 election. The court disagrees with the Appellants' claim that Louisiana law imposes an age requirement for judicial candidates, noting their lack of statutory support and reliance on jurisprudence interpreting age eligibility. There is no statutory or constitutional minimum or maximum age limit for candidates running for district court judge, as confirmed by Justice Dennis in Williams v. Ragland, which indicates the absence of such requirements in the Louisiana Constitution. Thus, Judge Marullo, at age 74, is not disqualified from candidacy. However, the suit seeks to disqualify him based on his qualifications to hold office, arguing he will reach the mandatory retirement age before potentially taking office if reelected. Historical context shows that the 1921 Constitution set a retirement age of 75, later amended to 80 in 1936 and reduced back to 75 in 1960, with provisions allowing current judges to serve until age 80 or until 20 years of service. The 1974 Constitution established a retirement age of 70 but retained rights for judges under the 1921 Constitution, including the option to serve until age 75. The Louisiana Supreme Court in Giepert confirmed that these rights apply to sitting judges at the time of the 1974 Constitution's adoption. Consequently, the applicable mandatory retirement age for Judge Marullo is 75. The court now considers whether reaching this age before the start of the next judicial term disqualifies him from running for reelection. Appellants argue that Judge Marullo is legally barred from becoming a candidate for office under La. R.S. 18:942 due to reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75, which would render him ineligible to serve. However, this argument is flawed because the law does not mandate automatic retirement upon reaching this age; a judge must either formally retire or be compelled to do so by the Louisiana Supreme Court. The case of In re Wingerter illustrates that a judge can continue serving until reaching 75 or completing 20 years of service, and retirement is treated more like a resignation than a removal. The appellants' interpretation of La. R.S. 18:451, which necessitates that a candidate must possess qualifications at the time of qualifying for office, is also rejected. The court emphasizes that 'qualifying' pertains to candidacy, not the status of an elected official. The court distinguishes prior cases and clarifies that legislative intent supports the notion that candidates must meet qualifications at the time of qualification, unless otherwise specified by law. An example from Montelepre v. Edwards shows that age requirements can be met even if they are not fulfilled until after the election, reinforcing that subsequent conditions do not disqualify a candidate who meets the necessary requirements at the time of qualification. One qualification for candidacy for office is that a candidate must meet the requirements for assuming the office at the time of filing. In this case, it is established that Montelepre will be thirty years old by the time he assumes the office, satisfying the age requirement for municipal court judges as defined by La. R.S. 18:451. However, there is no minimum or maximum age requirement for candidacy for district court judge, distinguishing this case from precedent like Stockstill v. Rousselle, where a charter amendment created specific qualifications that disqualified certain candidates from running. Unlike the Stockstill case, which involved term limits for parish council members, no additional qualifications for district court judge candidacy apply here, and mandatory retirement does not impact the qualifications for running. The appellants in the current case have not argued that Judge Marullo lacks qualifications under La. R.S. 18:492(3), suggesting he meets the necessary criteria. The court emphasizes its role in interpreting existing laws rather than legislating, acknowledging the potential scenario where Judge Marullo may be retired immediately after taking office but affirming that qualifications for candidacy are clear and unambiguous. Courts are constrained from altering laws to achieve unexpressed purposes. The district court referenced a proposed constitutional amendment to eliminate the mandatory retirement age for judges, which was set for a vote on November 4, 2014. The appellants argued that the trial court erred by considering the potential impact of this amendment. The court concurred, asserting that the amendment was not relevant to the case at hand and that courts should refrain from addressing abstract or moot issues, citing established jurisprudence. The trial court's judgment was affirmed, with dissenting and concurring opinions noted. Judge Frank Marullo, who has served since 1974, is identified as the longest-serving judge in Louisiana. The mandatory retirement age for judges, established under Article VII, § 8(b) of the 1921 Louisiana Constitution and codified in La. R.S. 11:1352, mandates retirement at age 70, with specific provisions for judges in office prior to 1974. Additionally, La. R.S. 18:1409 outlines the process for appealing a judgment regarding candidacy objections. The appeal in this case was filed on the same day the judgment was issued, August 29, 2014. The court noted that qualifications for candidacy must be met at the time of qualification, referencing La. R.S. 18:451. The court clarified that the charter amendment's effects were not retroactive, as it was approved shortly before the qualification period for candidates.