Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Christopher Wells was convicted of manslaughter in the 2008 shooting death of Brandon McCue. Defendant met with McCue to purchase marijuana. The two argued when McCue told defendant he had nothing to sell. According to defendant, the victim then pointed a handgun at him and instructed him to leave. Defendant returned to his own vehicle, retrieved his own handgun, then shot and killed McCue because he saw him "messing with the slide of his weapon." Defendant appealed contending, among other claims, that the jury was incorrectly instructed as to what constituted justifiable homicide. The court of appeal found the error in the instruction was not harmless and reversed. The State appealed, and finding that the court of appeal erred in its judgment, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Louisiana v. Wells" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether the email communications of an employee of a public agency, via the public agency's email system, on private political matters with private individuals, were subject to disclosure under Louisiana's Public Records Law, when those emails have been referenced in audits of the public agency. William Shane, a private citizen, exchanged emails related to political matters in 2010 with Lucien Gunter, who was then the Executive Director of the Jefferson Parish Economic Development Commission (“JEDCO”). In June of 2012, the results of an audit on JEDCO operations were released by outside auditing company, which noted that there had been some “de minimis use” of JEDCO's email systems by “certain JEDCO employees” to engage in “political campaign activities” during 2010. Subsequently, in October, The Times-Picayune reporter Drew Broach transmitted a public records request via email to JEDCO seeking to inspect the emails. JEDCO's then-public records custodian denied the public records request, stating that the emails at issue were not subject to disclosure because they were “purely personal in nature” and had “no relation to the public business of JEDCO,” and, even if considered public records, they were exempted from disclosure under LSA-Const. Art. I, Sec. 5's right to privacy. Upon a balancing of the public and private interests, the Supreme Court concluded that constitutional rights of privacy and association asserted by the plaintiff/private email correspondent were adequately protected by the release of the emails with redaction of all references to the private individuals, as ordered by the district court. Therefore, the Court reversed the appellate court decision and reinstated the district court decision. View "Shane v. Jefferson Parish" on Justia Law

This case was brought by the plaintiffs, mineral royalty owners, against defendants, mineral lessees and working interest owners, for unrecovered hydrocarbons after two wells ceased production. Following a lengthy bench trial, the district court concluded plaintiffs had not proven the operators caused any loss of hydrocarbons and dismissed their claims with prejudice. The single issue before the Louisiana Supreme Court was whether the district court committed manifest error in ruling in favor of defendants, finding their experts more credible than plaintiffs' expert. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court was incorrect in its analysis of the manifest error review standard, and after reviewing the record, the Supreme Court concluded there was a reasonable basis for the district court's conclusion on causation. Therefore, it's conclusion was not clearly erroneous. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the judgment of dismissal. View "Hayes Fund for the First Untied Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC" on Justia Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari in this child custody matter to review the designation of both parents as “co-domiciliary parents,” a designation which divided the courts of appeal. Both the father and the mother sought joint custody of the minor child, M.H., as well as to be designated as the child’s domiciliary parent. After a hearing, the trial court granted joint custody to the parents, ordered equal physical custody to be alternated weekly, and designated both parties as “co-domiciliary parents.” The mother appealed, contending that designation of both parents as “co-domiciliary parents” was not authorized by La. R.S. 9:335. She sought to be named as the sole domiciliary parent. The appellate court affirmed the “co-domiciliary” designation, but ruled that no valid joint custody implementation order had been rendered, and remanded the case to the trial court “for the entry of a joint custody implementation order allocating the legal authority and responsibility of the parents with regard to the health, education, and welfare of the child.” On appeal to the Supreme Court, the mother argued that the trial court’s judgment was insufficient to constitute a joint custody implementation order. According to the mother, the judgment addresses physical custody, but failed to designate which parent has decision-making authority for the child. The mother urges that under La. R.S. 9:335, there can only be one domiciliary parent. Read as a whole, the Court concluded the plain language of La. R.S. 9:335 manifested the legislature’s clear intent to establish a custodial system in which a child has a domiciliary parent and no more than one such parent. “The text is clear.” The case was remanded to the trial court for a prompt hearing and determination on how joint custody should be implemented, consistent with the Court’s opinion excluding the possibility of designating both parents as “co-domiciliary.” View "Hodges v. Hodges" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Meiko Prevo was arrested in April 2000 in East Baton Rouge Parish for felony crime against nature. Plaintiff ultimately pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of criminal mischief, a misdemeanor. She was sentenced to ninety days in jail, suspended, and placed on probation for a period of one year, which she successfully completed. Plaintiff was not required to register as a sex offender based on her conviction for misdemeanor criminal mischief. In September 2008, plaintiff was again arrested and charged with distribution of cocaine. She pleaded guilty, received a hard labor suspended sentence, and was placed probation for a period of five years with the State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety Division of Probation and Parole. Thereafter, plaintiff reported to her probation officer, David Phillips. Officer Phillips reviewed plaintiff’s criminal history which identified her as a sex offender based on a disposition for crime against nature in April 2000. He also relied on an East Baton Rouge Parish “conviction notification” which showed she was convicted of crime against nature. Based on this information, Officer Phillips advised plaintiff that she was required to register as a sex offender based on what he understood to be her earlier 2000 conviction, and if she failed to do so, she would be sent to jail to serve her five-year sentence. Plaintiff objected to being required to register as a sex offender. Plaintiff registered as a sex offender. On several occasions after registering, plaintiff continued to ask Officer Phillips to further investigate her case, claiming each time that she was not a sex offender and should not have to be registered. According to plaintiff, Officer Phillips took no action on her requests. Plaintiff obtained a copy of her criminal records, confirming she had been convicted of criminal mischief. Assigned a new probation officer, Mike Ware, plaintiff informed him that she had not been convicted of crime against nature and was erroneously required to register as a sex offender. Officer Ware investigated plaintiff’s allegations and obtained information from the East Baton Rouge Parish Clerk of Court showing plaintiff’s guilty plea to the misdemeanor charge of criminal mischief. Officer Ware informed plaintiff of his findings and began the process of having her removed from the sex offender registry. Plaintiff thereafter filed suit against several defendants, including the State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections Division of Probation and Parole, alleging that she was "coerced" to register as a sex offender and suffered significant injury as a result. After discovery, the State filed a peremptory exception arguing plaintiff’s petition sounded in tort and was subject to a one-year prescriptive period. A five-judge panel of the court of appeal, with two judges dissenting, reversed the judgment of the district court insofar as it granted the State’s exception of prescription. The State appealed and reversed, finding that the district court was correct in its judgment. View "Prevo v. Louisiana" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ writ application in this case to determine whether the lower courts erred by imposing personal liability on the sole member and manager of a limited liability company (“L.L.C.”). The issue presented centered on the scope of the narrow professional duty exception to the general rule of limited liability for members, managers, employees, and agents of an L.L.C. set forth in La. Rev. Stat. 12:1320. After review, the Court found the plaintiff failed to show the defendant member of the L.L.C. owed her a professional duty outside the confines of the contract. Furthermore, the Court found the defendant was not personally liable to the plaintiff for his negligent or wrongful acts. The Court reversed the rulings of the lower courts. View "Nunez v. Pinnacle Homes, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, alleging to be putative class members of multiple class actions, have filed their own individual suits against the defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (Citizens). Plaintiffs were residents of, and owned homes in, St. Bernard Parish at the time Hurricane Katrina. Their properties were insured under policies of all-risk or homeowners insurance by defendant. Plaintiffs originally filed suit against Citizens on December 3, 2009, seeking contractual and bad faith damages arising out of Citizens’ handling of their property damage claims related to Hurricane Katrina. Citizens excepted on grounds of prescription and lis pendens. At issue is whether the doctrine of lis pendens barred plaintiffs’ suits where the plaintiffs were not named parties in the first-filed class actions. The Supreme Court found the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s exception of lis pendens. View "Aisola v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

Joseph E. Boudreaux, II and Jennifer Boudreaux were married in 1997, divorced in 2011. The couple had two children during their marriage. The parties entered into a consent judgment with regard to custody, visitation, and child support. In September 2011, Joseph filed a rule to change custody and reduce child support. The trial court modified the custody arrangement, but denied the motion to reduce the child support amount. Joseph applied for services through the Department of Child and Family Services ("DCFS"), applying for support enforcement services available through the IV-D program, which allowed him to pay his support obligation directly to DCFS, who, as the new payee, would then tender the amount to Jennifer. In exchange for the services, he paid a twenty-five dollar registration fee, as well as a monthly administrative fee assessed by DCFS in the amount of five percent of his support obligation. This administrative fee was assessed in addition to his full support obligation. Joseph again moved to reduce his child support payments. Relying on La. R.S. 46:236.1.2 and 42 U.S.C. 654 (B)(i)-(ii), Jennifer filed an exception of no right of action, arguing DCFS had no right to intercede because the claim was not properly within the jurisdiction of IV-D categories over which a hearing officer has authority. In particular, she asserted that in order to invoke the services of DCFS, one must be receiving public benefits or delinquent in their child support payments. Jennifer's exception was denied, and the trial court ultimately reduced Joseph's child support. The court of appeal reversed, holding Joseph did not meet the requirements of the IV-D program. The Supreme Court reviewed this case to determine whether the court of appeal erred in its reversal. Finding that it did, the Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the trial court's judgment. View "Boudreaux v. Boudreaux" on Justia Law

In 1998, an Orleans Parish jury found respondent Ronald Marshall guilty of armed robbery. Following a habitual offender hearing, the trial court adjudicated respondent a second felony offender and sentenced him to 49 and a half years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. In 2010, respondent filed a second application for post conviction relief, asserting two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court of appeal granted respondent's writ, in part, and denied, in part, concluding the trial court erred by summarily dismissing respondent's claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to discover his attorney's time sheets and to convey the plea offer. The court remanded those claims for consideration at an evidentiary hearing, concluding they were substantively different from respondent's earlier ineffective assistance of counsel claims and, therefore, neither repetitive nor successive. The court of appeal also ordered the trial court to grant respondent's motion to issue the subpoena duces tecum to obtain the time sheets. The state filed a writ application seeking review of the court of appeal's ruling, which was the subject of this opinion. Finding that respondent exhausted his right to state collateral review, the Supreme Court vacated the appellate court's judgment and reinstated the trial court's denial of claims for post-conviction relief. View "Louisiana v. Marshall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the writ application in this case to determine whether La. C.Cr.P. art. 887(A) and La. C.Cr.P. art. 895.1(B) permitted the district attorney and sheriff to impose costs of prosecution and costs of investigation on convicted criminal defendants where those costs were not extraordinary or special costs unique to a particular case. After review, the Court found that these articles did permit the recovery of such costs, and further found that the costs imposed by the district court were fair, reasonable, and not excessive. View "Louisiana v. Griffin" on Justia Law