Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether La. R.S. 13:4210 was constitutional. Dionysia Prejean was a party to a child custody proceeding captioned "Dionysia F. Huval Prejean v. Ronald Joseph Prejean," which was pending in the 15th Judicial District Court. The last day of trial in the "Prejean" proceeding was March 18, 2011, at which time the district judge took the matter under advisement. When the district judge court did not render judgment within thirty days, as required by La. R.S. 13:4207, Ms. Prejean filed writ of mandamus against the Acadia Parish Clerk of Court, Robert Barousse, seeking an order requiring him to immediately notify the legislative auditor that the district judge failed to render a decision within the time prescribed by La. R.S. 13:4207, as required by La. R.S. 13:4210.2 In addition, she sought an order against the state auditor to withhold one quarter’s salary from the district judge, as required by La. R.S. 13:4210. The district court denied the writ of mandamus. Ms. Prejean then appealed. On its own motion, the court of appeal raised the issue of the constitutionality of La. R.S. 13:4210, and determined the statute was unconstitutional on its face because the legislature lacked the authority to regulate judicial conduct. In addition, the court of appeal found La. R.S. 13:4210 was an unconstitutional violation of the due process clause, as it purported to reduce a judge’s salary without providing the judge notice or opportunity to be heard. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that La. R.S. 13:4210 was unconstitutional on its face, but that "this action will in no way alter the obligation of district judges to render judgements timely, and adhere to the reporting requirements set forth in General Administrative Rule, Part G, sec. 2(b)."View "Prejean v. Barousse" on Justia Law

his matter came before the Supreme Court on the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana that respondent Judge Leo Boothe of the Seventh Judicial District Court, Parishes of Catahoula and Concordia, be removed from office and ordered to reimburse and pay the Commission for costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this case. The Commission determined that Judge Boothe violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(1), 3A(6), and 3C of the Code of Judicial Conduct and engaged in willful conduct relating to his official duty and persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brought his judicial office into disrepute, in violation of La. Const. art. V, sec. 25(C). After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Court found that certain charges against Judge Boothe were proven by clear and convincing evidence; however, the Court rejected the recommendation that he be removed from office. The Court suspended the Judge from office for one year, without pay, and ordered him to reimburse and pay the Commission $11,731.79 in costs. View "In re: Judge Leo Boothe, Seventh Judicial District court Catahoula & Concordia Parishes" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned a law was declared unconstitutional by a district court. The district court granted in part the Louisiana High School Athletic Association, Inc.’s (LHSAA’s) Motion for Summary Judgment, declaring La. R.S. 17:176(F), La. R.S. 17:176(G), and La. R.S. 17:236.3 (Title 17 statutes) unconstitutional because they are prohibited special laws under La. Const. art. III, sec. 12(A). The district court further denied in part the LHSAA’s Motion for Summary Judgment to the extent the LHSAA requested a declaration it was not a “quasi public agency or body,” and to the extent it requested a declaration La. R.S. 24:513(J)(4)(a) and (b) and La. R.S. 24:513(A)(1)(b)(v) (Title 24 statutes) were unconstitutional. The issue arose from LHSAA's refusal to provide the State an audit of its records: LHSAA argued that it was exempt from the statutory authority the State relied upon to obtain the records. The LHSAA filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction against the defendants the State of Louisiana, the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), Daryl G. Purpera, in his official capacity as the Louisiana Legislative Auditor (LLA), and James D. "Buddy" Caldwell, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Louisiana. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling with regard to the Title 17 statutes, and reversed the district court’s ruling to the extent it denied the LHSAA’s Motion for Summary Judgment pertaining to the Title 24 statutes; the Court found these statutes were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. View "Louisiana High School Athletics Association, Inc. v. Louisiana" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the State could directly enforce Article I, section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution to prevent a candidate from taking public office without regard to the Election Code's lime limits on challenges to candidacy. Answering in the affirmative, the Court reversed the appellate court's ruling and reinstated the trial court's ruling. View "Louisiana v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Respondent Manuel Ortiz was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1995 for the killing of his wife. The State urged jurors to find that Respondent was involved in a murder-for-hire scheme motivated by his desire to collect on an insurance policy taken out on the wife. Post-conviction relief proceedings stretched out over years. One of the allegations Respondent raised on appeal involved prosecutorial misconduct by a former assistant district attorney. The litigation took place against the background of the assistant DA's subsequent but unrelated legal difficulties which resulted his disbarment and imprisonment on federal charges. The district court ultimately denied respondent the post-conviction relief he sought, effectively rejecting specific claims that the assistant DA had suppressed certain exculpatory evidence and suborned perjury, but vacated Respondent's death sentence. Both Respondent and the State appealed the district court's decision. With no evidence that any prosecutorial decision made before or during the guilt or sentencing stages of trial stemmed in whole or part from any pecuniary interest in the insurance proceeds relating to the victim's death (including the decision to charge Respondent with his wife's murder), the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in vacating Respondent's death sentence. Accordingly, the Court reversed the appellate court's decision and reinstated respondent's death sentence. View "Louisiana v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in order to determine whether the court of appeal erred in overturning the rulings of the district courts with regard to certain tax assessments. Questions were raised as to whether review by the Court and the court of appeal was timely. Because the Supreme Court determined that the application in "Caldwell Parish School Board, 12-C-1383," was untimely filed, and the underlying appeal to the court of appeal in "Tensas Parish School Board, 12-C-1762," was also untimely filed, the Court found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the validity of the decision of the court of appeal in "Caldwell Parish School Board," and the district court judgment in "Tensas Parish School Board" was final and definitive. View "Caldwell Parish Sch. Bd. v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC" on Justia Law

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC sued Assurant Specialty Property, American Security Insurance Company, Donyelle January and Capital One Bank over a mortgage agreement. Specialized was the servicer of the note and mortgage executed by January. Specialized was the primary insured on a policy covering the property issued by Assurant and a subsidiary underwriter, American Security. After a fire, American Security cut a check made out to January and Specialized. The check was sent to Assurant who then forwarded it to January with instructions on how to endorse the check and then to return the check to Specialized. January negotiated the check to Capital One; Capital One cashed the check in favor of January with no endorsement from Specialized. Specialized contacted Assurant for an explanation, and Assurant claimed someone altered the check. Capital One rejected Specialized's fraud claim. Capital One filed a peremptory exception of prescription, contending that Louisiana law set a one-year prescription period: the check was negotiated in 2009, and suit was filed in 2010. The ultimate issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the doctrine of contra non valetem was applicable to suspend the prescription of a conversion claim against a payor. Upon review of the applicable statutes and the trial court record, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the doctrine could not suspend the one-year prescriptive period. View "Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC v. January" on Justia Law

During the 2012 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, the House of Representatives considered House Bill No. 61, which provided for the establishment of a cash balance retirement plan for certain new members of the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, and the Louisiana School Employees' Retirement System hired on or after July 1, 2013. The bill passed committee and eventually became Act No. 483. Opponents to the Act filed suit in district court; the district court declared the Act unconstitutional. Finding no error in the district court's analysis of the constitutionality of the Act, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Retired State Employees Association v. Louisiana" on Justia Law

Dr. Tommie Granger was a certified cardiac surgeon who had hospital privileges at defendant Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital. One of his patients was hospitalized at Cabrini and developed complications. While the doctor was called to the hospital to check on the patient, he and Cabrini staff got into a heated exchange of words within earshot of the patient. The doctor performed an in-room procedure and left. En route, the patient developed further complications, but the doctor was unable to go back to Cabrini to help. He called a colleague to perform the necessary surgery on the patient Cabrini's Board of Directors suspended Granger pending a review of the doctor's conduct regarding that patient. Finding that unprofessional behavior was a contributing factor that adversely affected the patient's care, the Board recommended that the doctor be placed on probation and to self-refer for anger management. When he did not comply, the Board revoked his privileges. The doctor sued, and ultimately won nearly $3 million in damages with respect to Cabrini's peer review proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that an award of lost income that was included in those damages was given in error, and was vacated. View "Granger v. Christus Health Central Louisiana" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Mary Soileau was injured while working for the Town of Mamou when a front-end loader detached from a tractor and struck her in the leg. She named the tractor manufacturer, the Town, Smith's Hardware (where the Town rented the tractor for employees' use), the hardware store's owners and their insurance company. Trial began with only the owners and their insurer as the remaining defendants in the suit. On the third day, Plaintiff moved to dismiss the owners and their company in the presence of the jury, stating that she did not seek any damages personally against them. Hearing no objections, the trial court granted the request, but made no written (and therefore signed) judgment of dismissal. On day four, the insurer moved for a directed verdict, based on contract language that it was obligated to pay only if its insureds were legally obligated to pay. The insurer's motion was denied, and ultimately over $9 million in damages were awarded to Plaintiff. Concluding that the trial court erred in denying the insurer's motion, the appellate court reversed, dismissing the insurance company. The issue before the Supreme Court centered on the effect Plaintiff's in-court dismissal of the insured parties was during her personal injury action. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court erred in its analysis, reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Solieau v. Smith True Value & Rental" on Justia Law