Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

This case arose on March 14, 2011 when, unbeknownst to school bus driver Harold Thibeaux, six-year-old La'Derion Miller's arm became trapped in the school bus door while he was attempting to board the bus. La'Derion was dragged by the school bus some eighty feet, and, when his arm became dislodged from the door, he fell beneath the wheels of the bus and was critically injured. La'Derion died approximately forty minutes later. La'Derion's mother, Heather Jagneaux, witnessed the accident from her front yard and heard La'Derion call out for her help, but she was unable to reach him. The issue presented in this wrongful death and survival action was whether a putative father was entitled to seek filiation of his deceased minor child by simply alleging in his petition that he is the biological father of the child. Concluding that the appellate court erred in holding that the plaintiff-father alleged insufficient facts to constitute a filiation action, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Miller v. Thibeaux" on Justia Law

Property owner Crescent City Property Partners, L.L.C., and a builder, Greystar Development and Construction, LP, entered into a contract in March, 2002 for the construction of a mixed-use development in Lafayette. Alleging defects in the builder's performance, and pursuant to the arbitration clause in the construction contract, Crescent filed an arbitration claim against Greystar in 2008, also naming as a defendant Greystar's surety, American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company. In response, Greystar filed a third party demand against various subcontractors. The Supreme Court granted writs in consolidated cases to consider whether the court of appeal correctly vacated the arbitration award, which had been confirmed by the district court. The court of appeal vacated the award on the basis the arbitration panel, in applying a statute of peremption incorrectly, disturbed a vested right of the plaintiff and, thus, the panel violated the plaintiff's due process rights. The court of appeal found the arbitration panel's interpretation of the law placed an impossible burden on the plaintiff, a burden the panel deemed fundamentally unfair, thereby requiring vacatur of the arbitration panel's award. After its review, the Supreme Court found that the court of appeal essentially misinterpreted the laws concerning arbitration, and, thus, erred in failing to limit its review to the factors mandating vacatur articulated in La. Rev. Stat. 9:4210. In reversing the court of appeal's decision, the Court reiterated well-settled law that otherwise fairly and honestly obtained arbitration awards may not be overturned merely for errors of fact or law. View "Crescent Property Partners, LLC v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Based on an agreement, an oilfield operator was authorized to charge certain costs against revenues prior to paying the oilfield owners. After a dispute arose, an auditor examined the oilfield operator's costs charged to the oilfield owners and found approximately $1 million as being unsubstantiated and, therefore, impermissibly charged to the owners by the operator. The arbitrator reached a different conclusion regarding what charges were permissible and awarded the owners approximately $1.6 million. Satisfied with the arbitrator's decision, the oilfield brought an action in the district court to confirm the award. The oilfield operator, however, moved to vacate the award. The operator argued that the arbitrator improperly considered certain employment documents and that the arbitration was limited in scope by the auditor's findings of the unsubstantiated charges. The district court confirmed the award and denied the operator's motion. The court of appeal affirmed, with one judge dissenting. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review as whether an accountant, serving as an arbitrator, exceeded his arbitral authority. Finding that the arbitrator acted pursuant to the authority lawfully and contractually vested in him by the parties, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mack Energy Co. v. Expert Oil & Gas, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2002, Warren Lester and hundreds of other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. and others seeking personal injury damages allegedly caused by exposure to naturally occurring radioactive material (“NORM”) and other hazardous materials at various Louisiana pipeyards operated by Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc. (“ITCO”). A flight of several plaintiffs, including John Oleszkowicz, was severed and transferred to the 24th Judicial District Court, at which point the only remaining defendants were ITCO and Exxon. The jury considered each of the plaintiffs’ compensatory claims for increased risk of cancer, as well as a claim for exemplary damages pursuant to former La. Civ. Code art. 2315.3. During the course of trial, the district court instructed the jurors that plaintiffs could bring a “new lawsuit” in the event they actually contracted cancer. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages for the increased risk of cancer. Oleszkowicz was personally awarded $115,000 in compensatory damages. Significantly, the jury did not award exemplary damages to the plaintiffs for increased risk of cancer, based on a finding that Exxon did not engage in wanton or reckless conduct in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances. The court of appeal affirmed the judgment on appeal, and the Supreme Court denied writs. Several months after the verdict, Oleszkowicz was diagnosed with prostate cancer. As a result, he filed the instant suit against Exxon and others, alleging his cancer stemmed from the same NORM exposure at ITCO’s pipeyard. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the plaintiff’s claim for punitive and exemplary damages was barred by res judicata and, if so, whether “exceptional circumstances” existed to justify not applying res judicata to bar the claim, as set forth in La. Rev. Stat. 13:4232(A). Although the court of appeal cited “exceptional circumstances” to justify relief from the res judicata effect of the jury’s verdict on the issue of punitive damages, the Supreme Court found no such “exceptional circumstances” exist under the facts of this case and reversed the appellate court's ruling. View "Oleszkowicz v. Exxon Mobil Corp." on Justia Law