Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff John Boudreaux filed suit against defendant Paul Cummings seeking recognition of a predial servitude/right of way by virtue of acquisitive prescription and a permanent injunction prohibiting Cummings from interfering with his use of the right of way. Specifically, Boudreaux averred that since at least 1948, he and his ancestors in title have been using a pathway and gate to cross the neighboring property that belonged to Cummings and his ancestor in title, the Weills. Testimony established that Boudreaux, his family, and farmers employed by Boudreaux used the right of way to transport farm equipment, to get to and from town for personal errands, and for convenient access to the adjacent road. In 1969, the Weills asked Boudreaux to move the right of way. Boudreaux acquiesced in the request and continued to use the pathway until 2012, when Cummings locked the gate and prevented Boudreaux’s use. Boudreaux alleged that he adversely possessed the predial servitude for thirty years and was entitled to ownership thereof. Cummings filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Boudreaux was a precarious possessor, and that acquisitive prescription never began to run in Boudreaux’s favor. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact remained. The matter went to trial and the court found precarious possession was irrelevant to a discussion of ownership of an incorporeal immovable, such as a predial servitude. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Boudreaux, ruling that the Boudreaux estate acquired a right of way over the Cummings estate by way of acquisitive prescription. Cummings appealed. After review, the Supreme Court found Boudreaux was a precarious possessor of the predial servitude, who never gave actual notice of his intent to possess on his own. Accordingly, acquisitive prescription could not and did not run in his favor. The Court reversed the court of appeal’s judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Cummings. View "Boudreaux v. Cummings" on Justia Law

This case presented a res nova issue for the Louisiana Supreme Court: whether gradual noise induced hearing loss caused by occupational exposure to hazardous noise levels was a personal injury by accident or an occupational disease, or both, under the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act ("LWCA"), thereby entitling the defendant employer to immunity from suits in tort under the exclusivity provisions of the LWCA. Interpreting the Act and mindful of the clear legislative purpose behind the workers' compensation scheme, the Louisiana Court found occupational noise-induced hearing loss fell squarely within the parameters of the LWCA, either the pre-1990 definition of “accident” or the post-1975 definition of “occupational disease.” As such, the Court concluded the defendants were entitled to immunity from suits in tort under the LWCA. Accordingly, the court of appeal properly reversed the judgment of the district court and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. View "Arrant v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2008, plaintiffs Byron and Margo Guillory filed suit against several defendants, including Pelican Real Estate, Inc. and its professional liability insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. Essentially, plaintiffs alleged the home they purchased contained a redhibitory defect. At issue in these consolidated applications was whether the court of appeal erred in reversing the judgment of the district court which dismissed plaintiffs’ suit as abandoned. For the reasons that follow, the Supreme Court concluded the suit was abandoned, and therefore reversed the judgment of the court of appeal. View "Guillory v. Pelican Real Estate, Inc." on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal, defendant David Koederitz stood accused of second degree battery and false imprisonment. He filed a motion to exclude certain portions of the medical records from Ochsner Hospital in New Orleans, that documented the victim's treatment for a broken nose and black eye from the spring of 2013. According to those records, the victim, defendant’s estranged girlfriend and mother of his child, appeared in the emergency room at Ochsner on February 23, 2013 and “report[ed] physical altercation with boyfriend.” The state alleged that her injuries occurred on February 19, 2013, when the victim paid defendant a visit, and he kept her confined in the following days to allow her injuries to heal. The victim’s initial report and treatment of her physical injuries led to a follow-up session in the hospital with a psychiatrist on February 25, 2013, in which she again identified defendant as her assailant and informed the doctor that “this isn’t the first time he hit me.” Defendant also moved to exclude three letters ostensibly written by the victim, one before the incident that formed the basis of the instant prosecution, and two written months afterwards. The state alleged that the victim subsequently committed suicide in the spring of 2014. Given the unavailability of the victim, the state intended to introduce the medical records and letters in lieu of her live testimony at trial. The trial court granted the defense motions on grounds that introduction of the documentary evidence in substitution of the victim’s live testimony would constitute hearsay in violation of Louisiana’s evidentiary rules and would deny defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. The court specifically found that the victim’s statements to the medical personnel at Ochsner were not reasonably related to the treatment and diagnosis of her injuries and were therefore inadmissible as a matter of the hearsay exception. The court further ruled that the letters constituted inadmissible other crimes evidence, even assuming they were properly authenticated and sufficiently connected defendant to the alleged incidents. The Supreme Court granted the state's application for review because it found that the statements made by the victim to her treating physicians identifying the person who struck her repeatedly in the face and broke her nose, as recorded in the certified records from Ochsner Hospital, were admissible under the hearsay exception. The rulings of the courts below were reversed in part and this case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Louisiana v. Koederitz" on Justia Law

On March 10, 2010, the Plaquemines Parish Government (PPG) acquired ownership of the state school located at 251 F. Edward Hebert Blvd. in Plaquemines Parish from the Department of Health and Hospitals. In January 2011, contractors working at the site reported that the power was off and that copper wire had been removed from one or more of the buildings over the weekend. A detective responded to the report and determined that the copper wire to three buildings grouped together in one of the complexes on the grounds had been pulled out “from the breakers, all the way through the walls and through the ceiling.” It appeared that a vehicle had been used to pull the wire out of the three buildings. Less than a month later, a second incident also involving the massive loss of electrical copper wiring occurred at the site in one of the five buildings comprising the Beech Grove complex at the back of the sprawling grounds and farthest away from the entrance on F. Edward Hebert Blvd. Left behind was some sort of remote vehicle key pad access device. Also left behind were spots of blood on the otherwise clean linoleum floor inside the building and samples were taken. The DNA found in the sample was matched to defendant’s DNA profile in CODIS and a warrant for his arrest issued on the basis of the two preliminary DNA matches. Defendant was charged with two counts of simple burglary. After trial before a six-person jury in August 2012, he was found guilty of unauthorized entry of a place of business on count one and not guilty on count two. The trial court sentenced him to six years at hard labor. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit pretermitted other assignments of error and reversed defendant’s conviction and sentence on grounds of insufficient evidence. Finding, however, that the evidence was indeed sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, and defendant's conviction and sentence were reinstated. View "Louisiana v. Taylor" on Justia Law

This matter stemmed from a recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana regarding the failure of respondent Justice of the Peace Lorne L. Landry to comply with the financial reporting requirements of Supreme Court Rule XXXIX. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the record established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent willfully and knowingly failed to comply with the filing requirement of Rule XXXIX, thereby subjecting him to discipline. Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500, plus costs. Respondent was further ordered to file his 2011 financial disclosure statement. View "In re: Justice of the Peace Lorne L. Landry, Plaquemines Parish, Ward 8" on Justia Law

The federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Louisiana Law to the Louisiana Supreme Court: did the dismissal of Scott Lemoine's criminal stalking prosecution (pursuant to the state Code of Criminal Procedure article 691) constitute a bona fide termination in his favor for the purposes of the malicious prosecution suit before the federal appellate court? The Louisiana Supreme Court answered in the affirmative: "a dismissal of a criminal prosecution pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 691 will constitute a bona fide termination in favor of the malicious prosecution plaintiff unless the charge is dismissed pursuant to an agreement of compromise, because of misconduct on the part of the accused, or in his behalf for the purpose of preventing trial, out of mercy requested or accepted by the accused, because new proceedings for the same offense have been instituted and have not been terminated favorably to the accused, or when the dismissal is due to the impossibility or impracticality of bringing the accused to trial." View "Lemoine v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

At a pretrial hearing on the State’s motion to introduce evidence of defendant Gary Layton's 1997 "sexually assaultive behavior," the trial court ruled the evidence was inadmissible because defendant’s alleged conduct did not meet the "elements of a sexual battery" as defined by state law. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Trial Court and denied supervisory writs. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court, finding that Louisiana law does not strictly limit evidence of past "sexually assaultive behavior" to sexual offenses. The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Louisiana v. Layton" on Justia Law

This matter comes before the court on the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana that Judge Sheva M. Sims of the Shreveport City Court, Caddo Parish, be suspended without pay for 90 days and ordered to reimburse the Commission's costs. The charge arose from an incident that occurred between Judge Sims and an assistant city prosecutor, Katherine Gilmer, on April 24, 2012, wherein Judge Sims stated that Ms. Gilmer was “held in contempt” of court and then ordered the dismissal of fifteen criminal cases on the docket that day. After reviewing the record and applicable law, the Supreme Court found that the charge against Judge Sims was supported by clear and convincing evidence. However, the Court rejected the recommended discipline and instead ordered Judge Sims be suspended without pay for a period of 30 days. Furthermore, the Court ordered Judge Sims to reimburse the Commission’s costs incurred relative to its investigation and prosecution of this case. View "In re: Judge Sheva M. Sims, Shreveport City Court, Caddo Parish" on Justia Law

Willwoods Community is a non-profit corporation subject to the precepts of the Roman Catholic Church providing ministries in affordable housing, faith and marriage, WLAE-TV and Eucharistic Adoration. Father Thomas Chambers served as president of Willwoods. In early 2009, Willwoods established the position of "Executive Director" as part of a succession plan to eventually succeed Father Chambers, who was then 74 years old. In a meeting, plaintiff Michael Read was formally offered and accepted the job. The parties discussed specifics such as salary, benefits, starting date and that the Executive Director would serve on the Board and the Executive Committee. There was no discussion at that meeting regarding a specific term of employment. There was no written contract of employment. Read began employment as Executive Director of Willwoods on June 1, 2009. In the subsequent spring, it became apparent to the Board that there was an issue regarding Read’s continued employment. Read was advised his employment at Willwoods was “not going to work.” Read did not receive any formal notice of termination at that time and he continued to work at the Willwoods office, testifying that he still hoped things could be worked out. There was testimony that Read was asked to submit a voluntary resignation, but Read refused. On June 23, 2010, Willwoods’ attorney sent a formal termination letter. Read subsequently filed suit against Willwoods alleging it had breached a five-year employment contract, seeking damages consisting of the remainder of his salary and benefits for the five-year period. The matter was tried before a jury who found in favor of Read by a 9-3 vote. Nine jurors specifically found there was a limited duration employment contract between Read and Willwoods and the duration of that contract was five years. The trial court denied Willwoods’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, and entered judgment on the jury’s verdict. The trial court calculated damages based on a pre-trial stipulation of the parties and awarded Read $510,328.75 in damages, together with interest from the date of judicial demand and all costs of the proceeding. Willwoods appealed and the court of appeal affirmed. After review, the Supreme Court held that the evidence in the record did not provide a reasonable factual basis for the lower courts’ findings. Further, based on its review of the record, the jury’s findings were clearly wrong. The Court therefore reversed the ruling of the court of appeal. View "Read v. Willwoods Community" on Justia Law