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

The case Bulot v. Justice involved plaintiffs Joseph Bulot and Rene Jacomine bringing suit against William Justice and the Clerk of Court for the 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. On February 2, 1990, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application numbered 89-CC-2877, leaving any lower court rulings in place. Chief Justice Dixon and Justice Calogero noted they would have granted the writ to review the matter.

procedure

In Davis v. Henry, public school employees in Terrebonne Parish went on strike over wages, hours, and the school board's refusal to engage in collective bargaining, prompting the board to seek an injunction declaring the strike illegal and barring picketing and related activities. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that public employees are covered by the Little Norris-LaGuardia Act (R.S. 23:821-24, 841-49), which limits injunctions in labor disputes to cases of imminent danger to public health or safety, and that the strike was therefore not per se unlawful or enjoinable. The court reasoned that the statute contains no distinction between public and private employees, that the nature and essentiality of the services (rather than public ownership alone) determine whether a strike may be enjoined, and that the board had not shown the requisite harm under the Act or Code of Civil Procedure article 3601.

labor & employment

In American Bank v. Saxena, the plaintiff bank sued to enforce five delinquent promissory notes signed by defendant Saxena in connection with real estate ventures and personal loans. Saxena raised affirmative defenses including failure of consideration, error, and estoppel, along with reconventional demands alleging misrepresentation, duress, and seeking damages, based on alleged unfulfilled commitments by the bank's president regarding supervision and appraisals in the projects. The trial court denied the bank's motion for summary judgment, finding material questions of fact, and the court of appeal upheld that denial. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that summary judgment was appropriate on four of the notes as a matter of law since no genuine issues of material fact existed on the principal demands, while noting the trial court's discretion under La.C.C.P. art. 1038 to withhold judgment pending resolution of the reconventional demands.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant Robert Harrison, who was convicted of manslaughter following a fatal shooting during a street altercation, after the state presented rebuttal testimony from a witness nicknamed 'Bootsie' who denied being present or kicking away a knife. The defense sought to introduce surrebuttal testimony from an investigator to impeach that witness's credibility but was denied by the trial court under state law limiting surrebuttal. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the surrebuttal evidence, which violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and that the error was not harmless because the defense's self-defense theory depended on impeaching the rebuttal witness. The court remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between a finance company mortgagee (Gulfco) and mortgagors (the Kings) over a loan secured by a mortgage on the Kings' home. After the Kings' house was damaged by fire, the insurer selected by Gulfco became insolvent and did not pay the claim, leading Gulfco to initiate foreclosure proceedings when the Kings could not pay the note. The trial court and court of appeal held that Gulfco had acted as the Kings' agent in obtaining insurance and was liable for the insurer's insolvency, extinguishing the debt by compensation and enjoining the foreclosure. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, ruling that a mortgagee who obtains and finances property insurance for a mortgagor has a duty of due care in selecting a solvent insurer but does not guarantee the insurer's solvency or financial ability to pay claims. Because there was no evidence that Gulfco lacked due care or had reason to suspect the insurer's insolvency, the court held that Gulfco was not liable and the Kings' obligation on the note was not extinguished.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case, State v. Ray, arose from a criminal prosecution in Louisiana against Terry Donald Ray. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the defendant's application for a writ. Three justices dissented from the denial, stating they would have granted the writ. The court's order provides no further details on the underlying facts or legal issues presented.

criminal law

The case State, Dept. of Transp. & Development v. Clark involved a dispute between the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and Larry E. Clark and his wife. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application for a writ, leaving the lower court's decision in place without further review. Three justices, Chief Justice Dixon and Justices Calogero and Dennis, noted that they would have granted the writ. The court's action provided no additional explanation or reasoning for the denial.

propertyprocedure

The case LaMark v. NME Hospitals, Inc. involved plaintiffs suing a hospital and related parties in Louisiana state court. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application for a writ, thereby upholding the lower court's decision without further review. Chief Justice Dixon and Justice Dennis indicated they would have granted the writ to consider the matter. The decision reflects the court's discretionary authority over which cases to hear on appeal.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case State v. Martin involved a writ application filed by defendant Cornelius Martin with the Louisiana Supreme Court following a lower court ruling in a criminal proceeding. The court denied the writ, leaving the lower court's decision in place without further review. Three justices, Chief Justice Dixon and Justices Dennis and Lemmon, dissented from the denial and stated they would have granted the writ.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between the Shepard family and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company regarding an automobile insurance matter. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application, declining to review the lower court's ruling. Three justices dissented and would have granted the writ for further consideration. The denial provides no additional reasoning or explanation for the decision.

proceduretorts & liability

The case Addison v. Williams involved multiple plaintiffs, including Thomas Wayne Addison, Sr., Daniel Smith, and Robert Michael Pike, seeking review from the Louisiana Supreme Court of a lower court decision favoring defendants Cody Wayne Williams and others. The Supreme Court denied the writ application, leaving the lower court's ruling in place without additional review or hearing. Chief Justice Dixon and Justice Dennis indicated they would have granted the writ to consider the matter further.

procedure

This case involved a marital dispute between spouses Kathleen Griffin Roberts and William V. Roberts, Jr. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application seeking further review of a lower court ruling. A majority of the court declined to hear the matter, leaving the prior decision in place, while three justices would have granted the writ.

family law

This case arose from a maritime personal injury claim by a vessel cook who slipped on oil while working aboard the M/V Patricia Bruce, leading to a Jones Act and general maritime law suit against her employer, the vessel owner, the oil company, and an insurer that later became insolvent. After the insurer's insolvency, the plaintiffs sought maintenance and cure benefits from the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, which denied coverage on the ground that the protection and indemnity policy at issue qualified as ocean marine insurance excluded from the Association's statutory obligations. The trial court and court of appeal granted summary judgment to the Association and other defendants, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that protection and indemnity policies are a form of ocean marine insurance based on the specialized character of marine coverage, its treatment in the Insurance Code, and legislative intent to exclude such insurance from guaranty fund protection. The court also upheld dismissal of the excess insurer because the primary workers' compensation policy was not in force and dismissal of the vessel owner under bareboat charter principles.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case of Keyes v. Johnson and Rebel Rental, Inc. came before the Louisiana Supreme Court on a writ application. The court denied the writ, leaving the lower court's decision in place. Two justices dissented, stating they would grant the writ and dismiss the case without prejudice. No further details on the underlying dispute or legal issues appear in the opinion.

procedure