Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2009, a grand jury indicted defendant Eric Ross for the 2008 second degree murder of Albert McClebb, Jr., who was shot to death in a housing development in New Orleans. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case for the limited purpose of determining whether the appellate court erred in reversing defendant's conviction, because the appellate court reviewed the grand jury testimony of a recalcitrant witness, as violative of Louisiana's grand jury secrecy laws. The Supreme Court concluded the appellate court erred in so doing, and reinstated defendant's conviction and sentence. The case was remanded to the appellate court for consideration of the rest of defendant's appeal. View "Louisiana v. Ross" on Justia Law

This case arose from a collision between an automobile and school bus which took place in the curve of a narrow portion of a road in rural Grant Parish. Plaintiff Shenan Smith Purvis and her passenger, Jessica Thomisee, were traveling southbound, and Jana Lashley, a school bus driver, was traveling northbound. The road had no striped centerline of demarcation. As the drivers entered the curve, the left-front portions of the two vehicles collided. Defendants, Grant Parish School Board and Jana Lashley, appealed the court of appeal's ruling that amended the district court's allocation of fault, and increased plaintiff's damage award. Upon careful consideration of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the appellate court's decision amending the district court's order was made in error. Accordingly, the Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the district court's judgment in its entirety. View "Purvis v. Grant Parish School Board" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case, Jimmie Jackson, E. Simms Hardin, and KSD Properties, LLC, untimely paid ad valorem taxes to the City of New Orleans on their respective properties, and were assessed penalties, fees, and interest thereon for various tax years between 2003 and 2009. Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against the City, seeking a declaration that Ordinance Number 22207, and the collection of any penalties, fees, and interest collected thereunder, violated the statutes and constitution of Louisiana, and that the application of Ordinance Number 22207 to this case violated U.S. Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. The district court issued rulings on the City's exceptions and on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, which: granted the City's exception of no cause of action as to Jackson and Hardin, dismissing these plaintiffs (for failing to comply with the city ordinance requiring payment under protest); denied the City's objections of no cause of action and prescription as to plaintiff KSD; and granted KSD's motion for summary judgment (upon a finding of unconstitutionality as to Ordinance Number 22207). Both plaintiffs and the City filed motions for new trial. The City's motion was granted in part, to dismiss KSD's claims as to its 2008 tax penalty and fees for failure to state a cause of action and to amend the judgment accordingly (for KSD's failure to timely assert a protest as to the penalty and fees assessed for that year's delinquent tax payment); the motions for new trial were denied in all other respects. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the City argued the district court erred in granting summary judgment by declaring Ordinance Number 22207 unconstitutional. After review of the district court record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. City of New Orleans" on Justia Law

The Attorney General for the State of Louisiana brought an action against the defendant pharmaceutical companies alleging, among other things, violations of the Louisiana Medical Assistance Programs Integrity Law (MAPIL). The district court entered a judgment upon the jury's verdict in favor of the Attorney General, finding the defendants' alleged misconduct in marketing certain drugs had violated provisions of MAPIL as it read in November 2003, and awarding civil penalties of $257,679,500.00, $70,000,000.00 in attorney fees, and $3,000,200.00 in costs. The court of appeal affirmed the district court's judgment. After its review, the Supreme Court found the Attorney General failed to establish sufficient facts to prove a cause of action against the defendants under MAPIL because no evidence was presented that any defendant made or attempted to make a fraudulent claim for payment against any Louisiana medical assistance program within the scope of MAPIL. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court's judgment in favor of the Attorney General. View "Caldwell v. Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc." on Justia Law

Juvenile J.M. argued the criminal statutes regarding the intentional concealment of a weapon(La. R.S. 14:95(A)), and the possession of a handgun by a juvenile (La. R.S. 14:95.8), failed to meet the requirement of strict scrutiny under the state constitutional provision securing the right to keep and bear arms. The juvenile court declared La. R.S. 14:95(A) unconstitutional as applied to juveniles, and found a portion of La. R.S. 14:95.8 should have been severed from the statute. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found the juvenile court erred in both of its rulings. The Supreme Court held both statutes constitutional and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In the interest of J.M. " on Justia Law

Defendant Micah Smith was charged with unauthorized participation in a medical assistance program. The State maintained Smith was excluded from participating in medical assistance programs through the administrative process by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) for various allegations of fraud and misconduct. After that exclusion, Smith continued to serve as the billing agent for Medicaid providers, despite his exclusion. Smith filed a motion to quash in which he challenged La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(4) as overbroad because it "prohibit[ed] a substantial amount of free speech and actions which would be protected under the First Amendment." He filed a second motion to quash, challenging La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3) as "so sweeping in its proscription that it denie[d] a wide range of protected benefits to which a majority of Americans are entitled." The district court denied Smith's first motion by granted the second. The State appealed. After review of the district court record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's declaration that La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3) was unconstitutional, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Louisiana v. Smith" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether an incomplete date in an attestation clause invalidated a last will and testament when the full date appeared in the first paragraph of the testament and on every page of the testament, including the page of the attestation clause. The district court granted the testator’s daughter’s motion for summary judgment seeking to set aside the will as invalid because the attestation clause was not fully dated and, thus, failed to meet the requirements of La. Civ. Code art. 1577. The court of appeal affirmed. Because the Supreme Court concluded the attestation clause in the notarial testament substantially complied with the requirements of Art. 1577, the Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Succession of James Jason Holbrook, Sr." on Justia Law

The State appealed a Court of Appeals decision to reverse defendant Jason Duhe's conviction and habitual offender sentence for the creation or operation of a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory. Defendant moved before trial to suppress pseudoephedrine tablets found in his car on grounds that they were the products of an illegal seizure. The trial court heard the motion on the day of trial after jury selection and before opening statements, and denied it. Thereafter, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. The court sentenced him as a habitual offender to 13 years imprisonment at hard labor. The court of appeal found that while the arresting officer had unquestionably seized defendant when he ordered him from the car, frisked him, and placed him in handcuffs, the court did not have to resolve whether the officer's conduct was justified by a reasonable suspicion defendant had been engaged in "smurfing" as part of a plan to produce methamphetamine. The court of appeal determined that, in any event, the detectives lacked probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of what amounted to lawful amounts of pseudoephedrine available for purchase over the counter. Accordingly, the court of appeal reversed defendant's conviction. The Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest defendant before he conducted his "wing span" search and went into the vehicle. But the Court also agreed with the State that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain all of the occupants of the vehicle and that he acted reasonably in entering the vehicle in a search for weapons to protect himself and his partner. Furthermore, the Court found that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did apply the officer's recovery of the 40 tablets from a closed container sitting on the back seat next to empty Sudafed boxes and extruded blister packs, a circumstance omitted from the court of appeal's assessment of probable cause. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the court of appeal and reinstated defendant's conviction and sentence. View "Louisiana v. Duhe" on Justia Law

In a direct appeal, the State appealed a judgment that declared La. R.S. 14:95.1 as unconstitutional. In connection with a motion to quash the bill of information filed by the defendant in this case, the district court found the provisions of the statute violated article I, section 11 of the Louisiana Constitution. After reviewing the defendant's claim, and taking into account his status as a probationer at the time of his arrest for the instant offense, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment. View "Louisiana v. Draughter" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on the limitation of liability afforded to a member of a limited liability company (LLC). In 2007, Mary Ogea signed a contract entitled "Custom Home Building Agreement" for Merritt Construction, LLC, to build a home on an undeveloped parcel of land she owned. On behalf of the LLC, its sole member, Travis Merritt, signed the contract. The contract did not specifically describe the type of foundation to be provided for the home. After the construction work had advanced well past the point of building the foundation and framing the home, Ogea hired another concrete contractor to pour a driveway and patio. This concrete contractor informed Ogea that he believed there were problems with the concrete work for the home's foundation. Ogea then hired a licensed engineer, Charles Norman, to inspect the structure. Norman conducted several inspections and concluded there were indeed significant problems with the slab foundation. Ogea notified the LLC of the problems with the foundation. Based on her consultations with Norman, Ogea requested a refund of all monies she paid to the LLC (approximately $94,000) and sought demolition of the unfinished home. The LLC did not reply to the refund request. Ogea did not make the final installment payment called for in the contract, and the LLC ceased all work on the home. Ogea then sued the LLC and Merritt individually. Ogea sought to recover the money she had expended for the home, plus other damages under the New Home Warranty Act. The district court rendered judgment against both Merritt and the LLC "in solido" for various items of damages. Both Merritt and the LLC appealed. The court of appeal reduced the amount of the general damage award, but affirmed the imposition of personal liability on Merritt. After reviewing the record and the controlling legal principles, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' judgment of personal liability against Merritt and dismissed the claims against him. View "Ogea v. Merritt" on Justia Law