Whether the court of appeal's decision below, which effectively shifted the burden of proof onto Petitioner, a non-moving party at the summary judgment stage, without adequate discovery, is contrary to established precedent

No question identified. : | QUESTIONG) PRESENTED | | (i) Whether the court of appeal’s decision below, whi h effectively s ifted the burden of proof onto Petitioner, a non morng py at the nen _ : ’ judgment stage, without adequate discovery, is|contrary to established . precedent. | (ii) | Whether the inequitable nature of the erroneous decision, as well as its adverse effect on tenants in the State of Louisiat a and nationwide, who ; rely on protection from slum landlords, merits this Court’s review. : | | | | | : po | | | : | . 4 |