Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court accepted a certified question from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of appeals in "MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Hagan" (641 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2011)): "[i]s the proposed jury instruction in this case, which state[d] that '(a) Defendant may be held liable for an inadvertent trespass resulting from an intentional act,' a correct statement of Louisiana law when the trespass at issue is the severing of an underground cable located on property owned by one of the alleged trespass[e]rs, and the property is not subject to a servitude by the owners of the underground cable but only to the contractual right to keep it, as an existing cable, underneath the property?" MCI alleged that co-Defendant James Joubert negligently excavated with a backhoe in violation of the Louisiana Damage Prevention Act. MCI alleged Defendant Wayne Hagan was vicariously liable because Joubert was acting as his agent at the time. The underground cable at issue was buried under land owned by Hagan. After a trial in the federal district court, a jury found for Hagan and Joubert. MCI appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Upon review of the issue presented by the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative: the proposed jury instruction in this case was not a correct statement of Louisiana law. View "MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Hagan" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case involved the Court's appellate jurisdiction over cases in which a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional by the trial court. The district court declared Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 496 unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution, and Article I Section 5 of the state constitution. In October 2010, the State brought charges against Defendant Larry Rochon, alleging he committed theft over $500. The charges were brought by a bill of information; Defendant had not been arrested and may have been unaware of the state's action. When Defendant failed to appear at the arraignment, pursuant to article 496, the state sought a warrant for his arrest. A public defender assigned to Defendant's case challenged the warrant for lack of probable cause. In January 2011, Defendant appeared in court for the first time and received notice of his arraignment. At a subsequent hearing, the district court found no probable cause for the arrest. Later that year, the parties appeared for trial, but the state entered a nolle prosequi, notifying Defendant of the potential for reinstatement of the charge. The state filed a motion to dismiss the appeal which was ultimately denied by the Supreme Court in September 2011. After careful review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court held that article 496 "must be read 'in pari materia' with La.C.Cr.P. article 202, such that a warrant may not issue on a bill of information unless an affidavit filed with the information shows probable cause for the arrest." The Court found that the district court erred in finding article 496 unconstitutional. View "Louisiana v. Rochon" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court on appeal was whether the Defendant Terrance Martin was "seized" when a police officer asked for his identification in order to check for outstanding warrants, then asked Defendant if he had anything illegal on his person while retaining the identification. Upon review of "the scant facts presented here," the Supreme Court found that there was nothing in the conduct of the officer which "decisively changed the consensual nature" of the officer's encounter with Defendant such that the Fourth Amendment protections were violated. Accordingly, the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the drugs which he admitted having on his person. View "Louisiana v. Martin" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the appellate court erred in reversing a trial court's denial of Harold Wright's exception of res judicata. Mr. Wright was paralyzed and incapacitated by a medical accident in 1973. He received $1.7 million in damages. The court declared Mr. Wright an interdict and appointed his wife as his curatrix. In conjunction with the proceeding, the court issued an order allowing the curatrix to invest the damages in long-term bonds. No portion of the Mr. Wright's capital estate could be withdrawn from any long range investments without specific orders from the court. Through his investment bank Defendant A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. (and with the court's permission), Mr. Wright received disbursements from the invested damages award. In 2002, Mrs. Wright sued Defendant alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Specifically, she argued that A.G. Edwards and its agents misappropriated the entire $1.7 million and disbursed principal in violation of the court's order. Furthermore, Mrs. Wright alleged that when one of her account managers left A.G. Edwards to work for Morgan Stanley, he took Mr. Wright's remaining principal with him. The dispute went to arbitration. While pending, Mr. Wright died, thereby terminating the interdiction proceeding. An arbitration panel issued an award in favor of Defendants. Mr. Wright's estate then filed a motion with the district court, and Defendants filed several exceptions including an exception of res judicata where they contended the arbitration proceeding precluded further court action. The trial court denied the exception, and the appellate court reversed, dismissing the estate's claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the arbitration award was unconfirmed, and therefore did not have a preclusive effect. Accordingly, the Court reversed the appellate court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Interdiction of Harold Wright" on Justia Law

This matter arose from a recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana (Commission) regarding Justice of the Peace Tina Revette LaGrange's failure to comply with the financial disclosure requirements of Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XXXIX. The Commission found that Justice of the Peace LaGrange failed to file her 2009 personal financial disclosure statement timely, thereby subjecting her to a monetary penalty. The Commission determined Justice of the Peace LaGrange acted willfully and knowingly in failing to comply with the financial disclosure rule and recommended that she be ordered to pay a penalty and reimburse the Commission for costs. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Commission filed an amended recommendation, recommending penalties be limited to $200.00, with no request for reimbursement of costs. After review, the Supreme Court found that the record supported the Commission’s finding that Justice of the Peace LaGrange acted willfully and knowingly in failing to file the financial disclosure statement. Justice of the Peace LaGrange was thereafter ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00. View "In re: Justice of the Peace Tina LaGrange" on Justia Law

This matter arose from a recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana (Commission) regarding Justice of the Peace Thomas Threet’s failure to comply with the financial disclosure requirements of Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XXXIX. The Commission found that Justice of the Peace Threet failed to file his 2009 personal financial disclosure statement timely, thereby subjecting him to a monetary penalty. The Commission determined Justice of the Peace Threet acted willfully and knowingly in failing to comply with the financial disclosure rule and recommended that he be ordered to pay a penalty and to reimburse the Commission for costs. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Commission filed an amended recommendation, recommending penalties be limited to $200.00, with no request for reimbursement of costs. After review, the Supreme Court found that the record supported the Commission’s finding that Justice of the Peace Threet acted willfully and knowingly in failing to file the financial disclosure statement. Justice of the Peace Threet was thereafter ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $300.00. View "In re: Justice of the Peace Thomas Threet" on Justia Law

This matter arose from a recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana (Commission) regarding Justice of the Peace Stacie P. Myers’ failure to comply with the financial disclosure requirements of Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XXXIX. The Commission found that Justice of the Peace Myers failed to file her 2009 personal financial disclosure statement timely, thereby subjecting her to a monetary penalty. The Commission determined Justice of the Peace Myers acted willfully and knowingly in failing to comply with the financial disclosure rule and recommended that she be ordered to pay the penalty and reimburse the Commission for costs. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Commission filed an amended recommendation, recommending penalties be limited to $200.00, with no request for reimbursement of costs. After review, the Supreme Court found that the record supported the Commission’s finding that Justice of the Peace Myers acted willfully and knowingly in failing to file the financial disclosure statement. Justice of the Peace Myers was thereafter ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00. View "In re: Justice of the Peace Stacie Myers " on Justia Law

This matter arose from a recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana (Commission) regarding Justice of the Peace David E. Cook's failure to comply with the financial disclosure requirements of Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XXXIX. The Commission found that Justice of the Peace Cook failed to file his 2009 personal financial disclosure statement timely, thereby subjecting him to a monetary penalty. The Commission determined Justice of the Peace Cook acted willfully and knowingly in failing to comply with the financial disclosure rule and recommended that he be ordered to pay the penalty and reimburse the Commission for costs. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Commission filed an amended recommendation, recommending penalties be limited to $200.00, with no request for reimbursement of costs. After review, the Supreme Court found that the record supported the Commission’s finding that Justice of the Peace Cook acted willfully and knowingly in failing to file the financial disclosure statement. Justice of the Peace Cook was thereafter ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00. View "In re: Justice of the Peace David Cook" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court arose from the sale of land sold to Plaintiff Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. who later discovered the land was allegedly contaminated with radioactive material. Plaintiff sued the former landowners and the oil and trucking companies allegedly responsible for the contamination. The oil and trucking companies moved to dismiss for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The appellate court initially affirmed the dismissal, but reversed its own decision after rehearing. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a subsequent purchaser of property has the right to sue a third party for non-apparent property damage inflicted before the property sells absent an assignment or subrogation to that right. After review, the Court found that the "fundamentals of Louisiana property law compel the conclusion" that such a right of action is not permitted. "Instead, the subsequent purchaser has the right to seek rescission of the sale, reduction of the purchase price or other legal remedies." The Court found that the appellate court erred in reversing itself on rehearing, and reinstated the ruling of the district court. View "Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp." on Justia Law

The issue central to this case arose from Plaintiff Ginger Durio's claims for property damage to her home following Hurricane Rita and for damages and penalties against her homeowner's insurer. The Court granted review of Plaintiff's case primarily to review the correctness of the rulings of the lower courts that applied the penalty provision of La. R.S. 22:1220 (C) to contractual damages, and awarding attorney fees pursuant to the amended La. R.S. 22:658. In September 2005, Plaintiff owned a home in Lake Charles, which was covered by a policy issued by Defendant Horace Mann Insurance Company (Horace Mann). The home was damaged by the hurricane. The extent of damage to the rest of the structure and to the interior of the home was disputed. Plaintiff filed suit against the insurer alleging her home and everything in it were destroyed, but Horace Mann "consistently arbitrarily and capriciously refused to classify [the] home as a total loss." Following a bench trial, the court ruled in Plaintiff's favor. The court ordered payment of policy limits on Plaintiff's homeowner policies. Horace Mann filed a motion for new trial. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, the court found it erred in awarding penalties under both La. R.S. 22:658 and La. R.S. 22:1220, and vacated those awards. Otherwise, the court denied Horace Mann’s motion for new trial. On its own motion, the court also granted a new trial relative to the attorney fees issue. Noting that newly discovered damages could trigger the amended version of La. R.S. 22:658, the court found there were newly discovered damages as established by the proofs of claim submitted, and those newly discovered damages were subsequent to the amendment. After review, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in calculating 22:1220 penalties based on contractual amounts due under the insurance contract: "[s]uch penalties are properly calculated by doubling the amount of damages sustained as a result of the insurer’s breach of its duties under the statute." Applying the proper statutory interpretation to the facts of this case, the Court amended the trial court’s judgment to reflect the correct award of penalties. Furthermore, the Court held the lower courts erred in applying the amended version of La. R.S. 22:658 allowing attorney fees to be awarded. Thus, the Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings on this issue, and vacated the award of attorney fees. In all other respects, the rulings of the lower courts were affirmed. View "Durio v. Horace Mann Insurance Co." on Justia Law