Laserfiche WebLink
<br />June 1, 20071 Volume 1 I No. 11 <br /> <br />The appeals court affirmed the decision of the lower court, <br /> <br />See also: Vitale v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Montville, <br />279 Conn. 672,904 A.2d 182 (2006). <br /> <br />Injunction-Parish seeks injunction to stop unlawful <br />home business <br /> <br />Homeowner claims parish did not prove property in zone that <br />doesn't allow business <br /> <br />Citation: City of Baton' RougelParish of East Baton Rouge v. <br />Davidson, 2006-1470 La. App. 1 Cir. 5/4/07, 2007 WL 1300813 (La. <br />Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007) <br /> <br />LOUISIANA (05/04/07)-Davidson owned property in a subdivision <br />in the parish of East Baton Rouge, In March 2006, suspecting that <br />he was running a business in the residential zone, the parish sought <br />an injunction. against Davidson. <br />After a hearing, the trial court found that Davidson was operating <br />a business, and it granted the parish a preliminary injunction. David- <br />son appealed, arguing that the injunction was granted improperly be- <br />cause the parish failed to prove that the property was in a zone that <br />prohibited businesses and the trial court's finding that appellant was <br />operating a business from his home was "manifestly erroneous and <br />clearly wrong, " <br /> <br />Decision: Reversed and returned to the lower court for further <br />proceedings, <br /> <br />At trial, the parish attempted to introduce a statement from a rep- <br />resentative of the planning commission that identified Davidson's <br />property as zoned A-l Single Family Residential-a zone in which <br />businesses were not permissible. Davidson objected to introduction <br />of the statement, because it was an "out-of-court statement by a de- <br />clarant being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted"; this <br />amounted to hearsay. For the representative to attest to the zoning <br />of the property properly, he should have appeared personally at the <br />hearing and testified, <br />The statement was found inadmissible, and the parish offered no <br />other proof that the property was in the zone. It instead argued that <br />the sIatement was admissible under a certain exception that treated <br />affidavits as proper evidence in injunction cases. The appeals court <br />found, however, that the proper procedure was not followed for the <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />89 <br />