Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In October 2010, Eddie Hoffman was injured when his vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Carolyn Elzy. Hoffman filed suit against Ms. Elzy and her insurer, 21st Century North America Insurance Company for damages allegedly resulting from the accident. This case presented with a question of first impression for the Louisiana Supreme Court's review as to whether a write-off from a medical provider, negotiated by plaintiff's attorney, could be considered a collateral source from which the tortfeasor receives no set-off. Applying Louisiana law and the principles set forth in our Civil Code, the Court found that such a write-off did not fall within the scope of the collateral source rule. View "Hoffman v. 21st Century North America Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In November 2008, a grand jury indicted defendant Lamondre Tucker for the first degree murder of Tavia Sills. After a trial, the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. At the conclusion of the penalty phase of the trial, the jury unanimously returned a verdict of death, finding aggravating circumstances that: (1) the defendant was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of second degree kidnaping; and (2) the defendant knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person. The trial court sentenced the defendant to death in accordance with the jury's determination. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, raising 55 assignments of error, combined into 21 arguments. After a thorough review of the law and the evidence, the Louisiana Supreme Court found no merit in any of the assignments of error. Therefore, the Court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "Louisiana v. Tucker" on Justia Law

In a cold-case prosecution initiated over 12 years after the victim died, the state charged defendant by grand jury indictment with second degree murder. A jury found defendant guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment at hard labor. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed defendant's conviction and sentence after finding that the evidence presented at trial did not support a verdict for either the charged offense or for its responsive verdict of manslaughter, an apparent compromise, and entered a judgment of acquittal. The state appealed. After briefing and argument and independent review of the record, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal and affirmed. View "Louisiana v. Robertson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the state’s writ application to determine whether a person required to register as a sex offender as a result of an offense committed as a juvenile under La. R.S. 15:542 had to comply with the sex offender identification required by La. R.S. 32:412(I) or La. R.S. 40:1321(J). After briefing and argument, it became apparent that the deficient record in this matter did not permit the Court to answer that question. Rather, the record made clear that the respondent in this case, K.L.A., was not required by La. R.S. 15:542 to register as a sex offender, though he agreed to do so by plea. Based on the specific facts of this case, the Court found he was also not required to obtain the sex offender identification. The judgments of the district court and the court of appeal were affirmed, solely as to their ruling that respondent himself was not required to obtain the sex offender identification required of sex offender registrants. View "Louisiana in the interest of K.L.A." on Justia Law

The predecessor(s) of defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company acquired the right to build a railroad over the property at issue in this case in the late 1880s. The railroad company provided not only public crossings over its tracks but also private crossings for the convenience of landowners, whose large tracts of land were divided by the railroad tracks. Sometime in 2006, Union Pacific began posting written notices at selected private railroad crossings, indicating its intent to close those crossings. In 2007, plaintiffs, who alleged their farming operations would be disrupted by the closure of the private crossings on which they relied to move farming equipment and materials from one section of farmland to another separated by the railroad tracks, filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Union Pacific from closing approximately ten private crossings and to require that Union Pacific reopen the private crossings it had already closed. Union Pacific removed the suit to the federal district court and filed a counterclaim seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to permit it to close the private crossings and to prevent the plaintiffs from interfering. Shortly after the filing of this litigation, the Louisiana Legislature passed 2008 La. Acts, No. 530 (effective August 15, 2008), enacting LSA-R.S. 48:394, which required the submission of an advance written notice, by registered or certified mail, to the Louisiana Public Service Commission (“LPSC”) and to the “owner or owners of record of the private crossing traversed by the rail line” by a railroad company desiring to close or remove a private crossing. The Louisiana Supreme Court accepted a certified question of Louisiana law presented from the federal district court, which asked: whether the application of LA. REV. STAT. section 48:394 to any of the properties in this case amounts to an unconstitutional taking of private property without a public purpose, in violation of Article I, Section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution. The Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that LSA-R.S. 48:394 did not effect an unconstitutional taking of private property as applied to the facts established in this case. View "Faulk v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

According to her Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, plaintiff Kasha LaPointe was employed as a tenured public school teacher by defendant Vermilion Parish School Board (“VPSB or the Board”). Jerome Puyau, the Superintendent of Schools for VPSB advised LaPointe that a “due process hearing” would be held in his office to address charges of alleged “willful neglect of duty” and “dishonesty.” According to the Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, this letter, also called the “charge letter” by the parties, advised LaPointe that she would be “afforded an opportunity to respond” to the allegations but that “[n]o witnesses [would] be heard….” However, LaPointe did appear with her counsel in the office of the superintendent and did present, with counsel's assistance, her explanations and responses to the allegations in the “charge letter.” After that hearing, the Board elected to terminate LaPointe's employment. LaPointe challenged the termination, asking for a Tenure Hearing Panel. The Tenure Hearing Panel was convened. The hearing officer and the panel proceeded to take evidence and hear testimony, all of which was preserved. Thereafter, the panel made its recommendation, voting 2-1 to concur with the superintendent‟s action to terminate LaPointe's employment. LaPointe timely filed a Petition for Judicial Review Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 17:443(B)(2), requesting judicial review of her termination. No judicial review of the termination itself had been conducted at this point, owing to a constitutional challenge. As to the constitutional challenge, LaPointe requested a judicial declaration that Act 1 of 2012 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature was unconstitutional in its entirety and further declaring Act 1 to be null, void, and of no legal effect whatsoever. She alleged the hearing provisions of Act 1 deprived her of her vested property right to continued employment without due process of law as required by Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, and of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. Because the constitutionality of Act 1 was challenged, the Attorney General later intervened as a defendant in the matter. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the lower court erred in declaring unconstitutional on its face Act 1 of the 2012 Legislative Session as codified in La. Rev. Stat. 17:443(B)(1) and (2). Upon de novo review, the Court found the court of appeal erred in declaring La. Rev. Stat. 17:443 as amended by Act 1 of 2012 unconstitutional on its face because it did not afford a full evidentiary hearing before a neutral adjudicator prior to termination. Instead, the Court found La. Rev. Stat. 17:443 as amended by Act 1 of 2012 provided sufficient due process to protect the tenured teacher's vested employment rights. View "LaPointe v. Vermilion Parish Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

The issue this matter presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court's review centered on the “amount in dispute” which determined subject matter jurisdiction of a city court with a jurisdictional limit of $30,000. After filing suit, plaintiff settled with the tortfeasor and the tortfeasor’s liability insurer for $25,000, plaintiff’s claim against her uninsured motorist insurer was the only claim left. The issue to be determined was whether following the dismissal of the settling defendants, the city court had jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim against her uninsured motorist insurer to the full extent of that court’s $30,000 jurisdictional limit. Put another way, the issue in this case was whether the settlement amount counted toward the city court’s jurisdictional limit. The Court held that it did not: because the $25,000 settlement amount no longer constituted part of the “amount in dispute,” the city court’s jurisdiction over the uninsured motorist claim was to the full extent of its $30,000 jurisdictional limit. Therefore, the appellate court’s decision was reversed, and the case was remanded to the court of appeal for further consideration. View "Swayze v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2007, the City of New Orleans (CNO) enacted a group of ordinances, codified as Sections 154-1701 through 15-1704 of its Code of Ordinances, which created the Automated Traffic Enforcement System (“ATES”). In 2011, plaintiffs filed a “Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction,” alleging the administrative hearing procedure set out in these ordinances violated Louisiana State Constitution Article I, section 2 due process rights and Article I, section 22 access to courts rights. Following an adversarial hearing, the District Court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction “enjoining, prohibiting, and restraining the City of New Orleans from conducting any administrative hearings authorized by the enabling ordinance section 154-1701 et seq.” The trial court further ordered that its ruling would be stayed “pending final resolution of a writ application to the 4th Circuit Court of appeals [sic] by the City of New Orleans.” In its written reasons for judgment, the District Court found that the enforcement procedure for the CNO's Automated Traffic Enforcement System gave the CNO administrative authority to adjudicate violations. The CNO, therefore, had a financial stake in the outcome of the cases adjudicated by hearing officers in their employ and/or paid by them, raising due process considerations. Thereafter, the City filed a supervisory writ application with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the trial court's assessment of the due process problems inherent in the ATES administrative adjudication procedure and finding that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the Plaintiffs presented prima facie evidence that they are entitled to the preliminary injunction and may prevail on the merits.” The City filed a supervisory writ application with the Supreme Court seeking review of the District Court's judgment granting the plaintiffs' the preliminary injunction. The Court unanimously denied the City's writ. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and they are entitled to summary judgment granting a permanent injunction as a matter of law based solely “on the affidavits attached and the opinion of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals [sic] and the concurring opinion of Judge Belsom [sic].” Attached to the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment were: (1) the affidavits of plaintiffs, Keisha Guichard, Edmond Harris, Lee Rand, and Jeremy Boyce; (2) the District Court's judgment granting plaintiffs' preliminary injunction, along with the court's written reasons for judgment; (3) the Fourth Circuit's opinion affirming the judgment granting the preliminary injunction; and (4) the Supreme Court's action sheet, denying the City's application for supervisory review of the preliminary injunction. The District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The City appealed. Finding that plaintiffs failed to follow the strictures of motion for summary judgment procedure, the Supreme Court declined to address the merits of plaintiffs' constitutional challenge. Due to the fatal flaws present in plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court's judgment granting the permanent injunction, reinstated the preliminary injunction prohibiting the City from undertaking any hearings based on this ordinance, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Rand v. City of New Orleans" on Justia Law

This was a legal malpractice case. Defendant Michelle Myer-Bennett filed a peremptory exception of peremption asserting plaintiff Tracy Lomont filed her malpractice claim beyond the three-year peremptive period set forth in La. R.S. 9:5605. Lomont opposed the exception, arguing the peremptive period should not have applied because Myer-Bennett engaged in fraudulent behavior which prevented application of the peremptive period. Lomont hired Myer-Bennett to represent her in a divorce and related domestic matters, which included partitioning the community property. Citibank obtained a default judgment against John Lomont (the ex-husband) on a delinquent account. Citibank recorded the judgment in the mortgage records in Jefferson Parish as a lien against the home. Lomont attempted to refinance the mortgage on the home and learned from the bank that the settlement agreement, giving her full ownership of the home, was never recorded in the mortgage and conveyance records. Lomont contacted Myer-Bennett to advise her of the problem. According to Myer-Bennett, because it was her standard practice to record such documents, she initially believed Lomont was given inaccurate information by the bank. Upon investigation, Myer-Bennett discovered that she had not recorded the agreement. Myer-Bennett recorded the agreement the next day, September 30, 2010. In December 2010, Lomont was notified that her application to refinance the loan was denied because of Citibank’s lien on the property. According to Myer-Bennett, once she became aware of the Citibank lien she discussed with Lomont the fact she committed malpractice and gave Lomont several options to proceed, including hiring another lawyer to sue her, or allowing Myer-Bennett to file suit against John Lomont and/or Citibank to have the lien removed. Myer-Bennett stated. Lomont chose not to pursue a malpractice action, but wanted defendant to fix the problem. Lomont denied Myer-Bennett ever notified her she had committed malpractice. Lomont contended Myer-Bennett never mentioned malpractice in December 2010, but simply advised she would have the Citibank lien removed from the property by filing lawsuits against John Lomont and Citibank. The district court sustained the exception of peremption and the court of appeal affirmed. Based on the facts of this case, the Supreme Court found defendant committed fraud within the meaning of La. R.S. 9:5605(E). Thus, the peremptive periods contained in La. R.S. 9:5605 were not applicable and plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim was governed by the one-year prescriptive period in La. C.C. art. 3492. Further, the facts of this case supported an application of the doctrine of contra non valentem. Because the Court found plaintiff filed suit within one year of discovering defendant’s malpractice, the Court held the lower courts erred in sustaining defendant’s exception of peremption. View "Lomont v. Myer-Bennett" on Justia Law

On March 15, 2008, a multi-vehicle accident occurred in St. Tammany Parish. Robert J. Bordelon, III is alleged to have caused the accident when he swerved two separate times from the left lane of traffic to the right lane, colliding with two vehicles. The second collision involved plaintiff Richard Reynolds, who was driving a 2003 Infiniti G35S, which was manufactured by Nissan North America. After the initial impact, plaintiff was pushed into another vehicle and came to rest in a ditch. The accident caused plaintiff to sustain serious injuries. Plaintiff filed suit against Bordelon and other defendants. With regard to Nissan, plaintiff asserted claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) for the failure of the air bags to deploy and/or operate. Specifically, he alleged the Infiniti was defective: (1) due to a construction or composition defect; (2) due to a design defect; (3) for failure to contain an adequate warning; and (4) for failure to conform to an express warranty. Nissan moved for summary judgment, which was ultimately granted. On appeal, plaintiff argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the LPLA claim. But finding no reversible error, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed. View "Reynolds v. Bordelon" on Justia Law