John Allen Dixon jr

The case concerned whether Plaquemines Parish ordinances allowing immediate suspension or revocation of liquor, beer, and occupational licenses without prior notice or hearing violated due process. A bar owner sued after officials seized her permits and ordered her business closed based on alleged violations such as serving minors, with a hearing offered only days later. The trial court issued an injunction, finding the ordinances unconstitutional because licenses constitute property interests entitled to pre-deprivation process under state and federal law. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that due process requires notice and a hearing before suspension absent an emergency not shown on these facts, even though a post-suspension hearing later upheld the action on additional grounds.

business & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

This case involved the appeal of Ronnie Burrell's conviction and death sentence for the first-degree murder of William and Callie Frost, who were shot in their home during an apparent robbery on August 31, 1986. The prosecution relied on testimony from Burrell's ex-wife, who reported seeing a victim's wallet and cash in his car shortly after the killings, along with statements from a fellow inmate about Burrell's admissions, and evidence linking him to co-defendant Michael Graham. Burrell challenged his indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence, various trial rulings, and the proportionality of his death sentence compared to other first-degree murder cases in the district. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence supported the jury's findings, no reversible errors occurred in the proceedings, and the death penalty was not disproportionate given the premeditated killing of two victims during a robbery. The court compared the case to similar Louisiana precedents involving multiple victims and found the sentence consistent with those outcomes.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Louisiana physicians Dr. Antonio Romero and Dr. Jesusa Romero, who were convicted on dozens of counts of Medicaid fraud under R.S. 14:70.1 for submitting false claims totaling under $2,000 over three years through practices such as overbilling office visits, billing for unrendered nursing home and follow-up visits, and billing telephone orders as consultations. After the court of appeal reversed some convictions, both the state and defendants sought review in the Louisiana Supreme Court, which addressed evidentiary issues including the admissibility of nursing home patient records under the hearsay rule to prove services were not provided, as well as the sufficiency of evidence regarding the defendants' knowledge and intent given the complex Medicaid billing codes and minimal amounts involved. The court examined the role of fiscal intermediaries, provider manuals, and remittance statements in processing claims, along with whether the absence of documentation in the records could establish fraud. Core reasoning focused on hearsay exceptions for the Greenhill documents and factors bearing on criminal intent in the context of the program's rules.

criminal lawhealthcare

The case involved a grain storage tank built by GATX for Bunge that ruptured in 1982, causing significant damage, more than ten years after its completion in 1969. Bunge and its insurers sued GATX on various theories including tort, contract, warranty, and strict liability, alleging that GATX learned of a defect related to temperature changes but failed to warn Bunge. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the ten-year peremptive period under R.S. 9:2772 barred all claims against the contractor for deficiencies in the construction of an immovable, even those based on a post-construction failure to warn of a known hazard. The court reasoned that the statute expressly applies to any action, whether in contract or tort, for deficiencies in construction and destroys the right to sue after the peremptive period expires, without exception for subsequent knowledge by the builder.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case is a concursus proceeding initiated by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. to determine which of two families, the Chustzes or the Landrys, is entitled to mineral royalties from an island formed by Bayou Boidore. The trial court ruled that the Chustz family held record title and constructive possession, dismissing the Landrys' reconventional demand because they failed to prove thirty years of acquisitive prescription. On appeal, the intermediate court reversed, finding the Landrys' acts of possession sufficient, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that the Landrys' open, continuous, and unequivocal acts—such as grazing livestock, planting grass, and maintaining earthen dikes providing exclusive access—met the requirements for corporeal possession under Louisiana law, given the nature of the property and the absence of similar access or acts by the Chustzes.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a civil dispute between plaintiff Lew A. Robichaux and defendants Harold L. Randolph, Sr., Howard Trucking Co., Inc., Transit Casualty Insurance Co., and the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association. The matter reached the Louisiana Supreme Court on an application for a writ. The court denied the writ as supplemented. Chief Justice Dixon and Justice Cole dissented, stating they would have granted the writ.

procedure