Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A subcontractor filed a lawsuit in 2013 against a contractor, the contractor's insurer, and a developer, claiming non-payment for work performed on a subdivision project. The contractor and insurer responded with a reconventional demand and a cross-claim. The subcontractor obtained a default judgment against the developer, which the developer later sought to annul, arguing that a bond it posted extinguished its obligation. Various motions and hearings were scheduled and rescheduled over the years, with significant delays and inactivity.The trial court granted an ex parte motion to dismiss the case for abandonment, as no steps had been taken in the prosecution or defense for over three years. The subcontractor's motion to set aside the dismissal was denied, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the defendants' actions did not constitute steps in the defense of the case.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case to determine if the lower courts erred in granting the motion to dismiss for abandonment. The court held that the defendants' motion to continue a hearing due to an emergency surgery, which included a request to reset the hearing date, constituted a step in the defense of the case. This action was inconsistent with an intent to treat the case as abandoned and thus waived the right to assert abandonment. The court reversed the lower courts' rulings and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "PINNACLE CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C. VS. DEVERE SWEPCO JV, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Huntsman International, LLC, a chemical company, sued Praxair, Inc. for breach of contract, alleging that Praxair failed to supply sufficient hydrogen and carbon monoxide to Huntsman's Geismar, Louisiana plant. This failure allegedly caused Huntsman to lose sales of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and aniline, resulting in lost profits. Huntsman also sought cover damages for the additional costs incurred to purchase industrial gas from another supplier.The case proceeded to a three-week jury trial in the Parish of Orleans Civil Court, where the jury awarded Huntsman $88,117,405 in lost profits and $4,991,473 in cover damages. Praxair's motion for a new trial was denied. The Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the trial court's judgment, with two judges dissenting in part on the award of lost profits.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and found that the jury abused its discretion by awarding lost profits not established with reasonable certainty. The court noted that the only expert witness, Rebecca Szelc, calculated lost profits to be $37,522,291 using a detailed methodology based on monthly production and sales data. The jury, however, used an alternative method suggested by Huntsman's counsel, which averaged the profit margins of the top-third most profitable transactions, resulting in a higher figure.The Supreme Court held that the jury's method was not supported by the evidence and relied on speculation. Consequently, the court amended the award, reducing the lost profits to $37,522,291, as calculated by Szelc. The judgment was thus amended in part. View "HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C. VS. PRAXAIR, INC." on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted in district court for second-degree murder under La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(3) for providing drugs that led to the poly drug toxicity death of the victim. The incident involved the victim, Brittany Lapeyrouse, who died on September 19, 2018, after consuming various drugs. The defendant and two co-defendants were initially charged with multiple felonies, including negligent homicide. A superseding indictment charged the defendant alone with second-degree murder, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possession of alprazolam, and illegal carrying of weapons while in possession of controlled dangerous substances. The defendant pleaded not guilty, but a jury found him guilty on all counts.The Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, reversed the second-degree murder conviction, citing insufficient evidence. The appellate court noted that while there was evidence the defendant sold methamphetamine to the victim, there was no direct evidence that the victim ingested the methamphetamine sold by the defendant. The court also highlighted that the victim had access to drugs from other sources and was not in the defendant's company for extended periods on the day of her death. The appellate court concluded that the prosecution failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as required by La. R.S. 15:438.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court's decision. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the methamphetamine sold by the defendant was the direct cause of the victim's death. The court emphasized that the statute requires proof that the controlled substance distributed by the defendant was the direct cause of death, which was not established in this case. The court also noted that the State's expert could not definitively state that the methamphetamine alone caused the death, as the victim had multiple drugs in her system. View "STATE OF LOUISIANA VS. BARTIE" on Justia Law

Frank Cushenberry and his family sought damages from Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC, for injuries sustained in a vehicular accident on Interstate 10 in LaPlace, Louisiana. The trial court did not instruct the jury on certain duties and obligations, but this was not considered reversible error. The jury found Barber Brothers solely at fault and awarded significant general and loss of consortium damages to the Cushenberry family.The Court of Appeal, First Circuit, reviewed the case and the Louisiana Supreme Court initially reduced the general damages awarded to Mr. Cushenberry from $10,750,000 to $5,000,000, and the loss of consortium awards to his wife and children from $2,500,000 and $1,500,000 each to $400,000 and $100,000 each, respectively. The court also adjusted the fault allocation, assigning 20% fault to Mr. Cushenberry and 80% to Barber Brothers.Upon rehearing, the Louisiana Supreme Court re-examined the general damage and loss of consortium awards, considering the particular facts and circumstances of the case and prior awards in similar cases. The court found that the jury did not abuse its discretion in awarding $10,750,000 in general damages to Mr. Cushenberry, given the extensive physical and psychological injuries he sustained and their impact on his life and family. The court also amended the loss of consortium awards, increasing them to $1,000,000 for Mrs. Cushenberry and $500,000 each for the children, Noah and Khloe.The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court judgment as amended, maintaining the 20% fault allocation to Mr. Cushenberry and 80% to Barber Brothers. The court emphasized the importance of considering the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances, alongside prior awards, in determining whether a general damage award is an abuse of discretion. View "BARBER BROTHERS CONTRACTING COMPANY, LLC VS. CAPITOL CITY PRODUCE COMPANY, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1996, Darrell J. Robinson was convicted of the brutal murders of four individuals, including a ten-month-old child, in Louisiana. The victims were shot in the head, and Robinson was sentenced to death based on the jury's recommendation. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case. In 2005, Robinson filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court in 2020. Robinson then sought review from the Louisiana Supreme Court, which initially set aside his conviction and sentence, citing due process violations due to the State's suppression of evidence and presentation of false testimony.The Louisiana Supreme Court granted a rehearing to reexamine its decision. Upon further review, the court found no merit in Robinson's claims of Brady violations, which alleged the State withheld favorable evidence, including deals with a jailhouse informant, forensic records, and eyewitness information. The court determined that the evidence was either not material or not favorable to Robinson's defense. The court also found no evidence of a pre-trial deal with the informant and concluded that the cumulative effect of the alleged Brady violations did not undermine confidence in the verdict.The court also addressed Robinson's claims of Napue violations, which alleged the State allowed false testimony. The court found no evidence that the testimony in question was false or that the State knew it was false. Additionally, the court rejected Robinson's claim of actual innocence, finding that the new evidence presented did not meet the high standard required to overturn the conviction.Ultimately, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated its previous decision, reinstated Robinson's conviction and death sentence, and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of Robinson's post-conviction relief application. View "State ex rel. Robinson v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

In 2008, John Wallace Frabbiele executed a three-page document as his last will and testament, bequeathing his estate to his third wife, Barbara Ann Nash Frabbiele, and his son Anthony. The will was signed before two witnesses and a notary public. John died in 2021, and Barbara filed the will for probate. John’s seven adult children opposed the probate, arguing the will was invalid because John only initialed the first two pages and signed his name on the last page.The 40th Judicial District Court found the will valid, ruling that John’s initials on the first two pages substantially complied with the requirements of La. C.C. art. 1577(1). The appellate court denied a writ application, agreeing with the trial court’s decision.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case to determine if the initials satisfied the mandatory signature requirements of Article 1577(1). The court held that the testator’s initials on the first two pages did not meet the requirement to “sign his name” on each page. The court emphasized that the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, requiring a full signature on each page to prevent fraud. The court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, declaring the will invalid due to noncompliance with the mandatory formalities of Article 1577(1). View "Succession of Frabbiele" on Justia Law

The case involves Jaylon K. Brown, who was charged with two counts of second-degree murder. The victims, Dararius Evans and Aleysia Maynor, were found shot in a vehicle. Brown, known as "Sneaks," initially denied involvement but later claimed self-defense in the shooting of Evans and accidental shooting of Maynor. He was convicted of second-degree murder for Evans and manslaughter for Maynor, receiving life imprisonment and a 40-year sentence, respectively.The District Court removed a juror, Bernadine Poole, for repeatedly sleeping during the trial. Brown's defense argued that this removal violated his rights as it occurred outside his presence and without a hearing. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and sentences, finding no error in the juror's removal, as her sleeping was a significant distraction and she failed to stay awake despite warnings.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case. The court found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in removing juror Poole, as she was unable to perform her duties due to her sleepiness. The court noted that defense counsel did not request a hearing or object to the juror's removal outside Brown's presence. The court held that the removal was justified given the juror's inability to stay awake during critical parts of the trial, including live testimony and video evidence. The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the lower court's decision. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

In 2016, a five-year-old girl, B.J., disclosed to her grandmother, A.J., that her father, the defendant, had inappropriately touched her genitalia. This led to an investigation and the defendant being charged with sexual battery of a victim under the age of 13. At trial, B.J., then eight years old, testified that the incident occurred during an overnight stay at her adult sister’s home. The defendant denied the allegations.A Washington Parish jury found the defendant guilty in 2019. The trial court sentenced him to 40 years imprisonment at hard labor without the possibility of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The Court of Appeal, First Circuit, affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing due to a procedural error. On remand, the trial court reimposed the 40-year sentence. The defendant appealed again, arguing that the sentence was excessive given his age and the nature of the offense. The Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and found the 40-year sentence excessive. The court noted that the defendant, a first-time sex offender in his mid-60s, received a sentence disproportionate to those imposed in similar cases. The court emphasized that while the crime was serious, a 25-year sentence without parole eligibility would be more appropriate and consistent with sentences in comparable cases. Consequently, the court reduced the sentence to 25 years imprisonment at hard labor without parole eligibility and remanded the case to the district court to update the commitment order. View "State v. Mangrum" on Justia Law

In August 2010, the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University filed a suit to expropriate property in New Orleans for constructing an academic medical center. The property owners, Allen Bickham and others, were named as defendants. A default judgment was obtained in March 2011, setting compensation for the property. In October 2011, James Alderdice intervened, claiming a mortgage on the property and seeking damages for lack of notice and demolition of the building.The Orleans Civil District Court granted a peremptory exception of no right of action against Alderdice in March 2014, dismissing his intervention. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision in March 2015, allowing Alderdice to assert his rights as a mortgagee. Alderdice then moved for a status conference and later for a trial date. In March 2017, a joint motion to continue the trial without date was filed and granted. Subsequent motions were filed, including a motion to set for trial in March 2020. The Board moved to dismiss the intervention as abandoned in June 2023, arguing that no steps had been taken for over three years.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed whether the joint motion to continue trial without date constituted a "step" under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 561, which would interrupt the abandonment period. The Court held that such a motion is not a step as it does not hasten the case towards judgment. However, the Court found that the joint motion reflected the parties' intent to advance the lawsuit, thus waiving the abandonment claim. Additionally, the Court noted that the abandonment period was suspended due to the Covid-19 emergency, and Alderdice's motion to set for trial in March 2020 interrupted the abandonment period. The Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, denying the Board's motion to dismiss the case as abandoned. View "BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE VS. BICKHAM" on Justia Law

An infant child, G.K., suffered grievous injuries while in the legal custody of the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and under the physical care of foster parent Samantha Gafford. Brittany Howe, G.K.'s biological mother, filed a lawsuit individually and as natural tutrix of G.K. against Gafford and DCFS. The plaintiffs alleged that DCFS had a non-delegable duty of care towards G.K. and was liable for the actions of the foster parent.The trial court granted DCFS's motion for summary judgment, agreeing with DCFS's argument that the non-delegable duty was effectively overturned by the case Kunath v. Gafford and that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding Gafford's employment status with DCFS. The Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, affirmed the trial court's decision, reasoning that Louisiana Revised Statute 42:1441.1 prohibited DCFS from being held liable for the actions of foster parents unless the foster parent was an official, officer, or employee of the state.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that DCFS has a non-delegable duty of care and well-being owed to children in its legal custody, which cannot be abrogated by La. R.S. 42:1441.1. The court clarified that this duty is distinct from vicarious liability arising from a master-servant relationship and is an affirmative duty owed by the state. The court concluded that the statute does not apply to the duty of care DCFS owes to children in its custody. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "HOWE VS. GAFFORD" on Justia Law