The case involved Terrance Hardy, the biological father of a child born in May 2019, who filed a 2021 petition to establish paternity and seek custody more than one year after the birth, after the mother Sarah Davidson had sought to bar the action. The presumed father (the mother's ex-husband) later petitioned to disavow paternity, and the trial court rejected the mother's exceptions of prescription and peremption. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that La. C.C. art. 198's one-year limit on avowal actions was unconstitutional as applied because it infringed the biological father's protected liberty interest in parenting his child and violated due process under the Louisiana and U.S. Constitutions, where the child was not living in an intact family with the presumed father and Hardy had assumed parental responsibilities from birth and was named on the birth certificate.
In State v. White, the defendant was charged with six counts of simple burglary after being found at a car lot with open vehicle doors and hoods, and he was convicted by a six-person jury as a fourth-felony offender, receiving concurrent 20-year sentences. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the written jury verdict form's omission of a "not guilty" responsive verdict option constituted reversible error, despite the trial court's oral instructions listing not guilty as an option and the defendant's failure to object at trial. The court reversed the convictions and habitual offender adjudication, vacated the sentences, and remanded the case, holding that the omission on the verdict form was a fundamental defect not cured by oral instructions or prior precedent like State v. Craddock. Concurrences and a dissent addressed whether the error was structural or subject to harmless-error review, with some justices viewing it as automatically requiring reversal.
The case involved a dispute over the validity of a handwritten will (olographic testament) written by Laurie Maria Brocato in a composition notebook with dates from January 31 to February 2, 2021, which left property to her surviving spouse Lisa Vickers, as opposed to an earlier 2019 will favoring her nephew. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions to probate the 2021 document and revoke the 2019 one. The court reasoned that the document satisfied the requirements of La. C.C. art. 1575 for an olographic testament, including being entirely in the testator's handwriting, dated, and signed, even with multiple dates across pages and the signature appearing at the top of the second page, consistent with the 2025 amendment to the law.
In State of Louisiana v. Gerald Manchip White, the defendant, a convicted felon, was charged with three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon after parole officers discovered three guns in his home during a residence check. The jury convicted him on two counts (one as attempted possession), the court of appeal affirmed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court granted review. The court reversed the convictions and sentences, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant had the requisite intent for constructive possession of the firearms. Applying the Jackson v. Virginia due process standard, the majority reasoned that the testimony from family members attributing ownership of the guns to others, combined with the lack of proof the defendant exercised dominion or control, did not allow a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case involved a products liability claim under the Louisiana Products Liability Act brought by the family of Carlos Pellecer, who died after falling from an allegedly defective aluminum extension ladder while working as a handyman. The plaintiffs sued Werner Co. (a Delaware corporation) and New Werner Holding Co., Inc., alleging the ladder was unreasonably dangerous and that the defendants had failed to warn about a prior recall. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal, vacated the trial court judgment based on the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, and rendered judgment for the defendants. The court held that the defendants were not manufacturers of the ladder under the Act because it had been produced in 1991 by a predecessor Pennsylvania company that later went bankrupt, and the defendants acquired only certain assets including the name without labeling the specific ladder or holding themselves out as its manufacturer in a manner that would impose liability.
This case involved a dispute over a 2017 tax sale of property in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, purchased by Belaire Development & Construction due to unpaid taxes, followed by a 2021 petition to quiet title and a 2022 reconventional demand by the property owner's succession seeking to annul the sale for lack of pre- and post-sale notice. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower courts' rulings on prescription. The court held that, under the 2008 revisions to La. R.S. Title 47 effective in 2009, failure to provide pre-tax sale notice no longer renders a tax sale an absolute nullity but instead creates a relative nullity. It further held that an action to annul such a sale, when asserted as a reconventional demand in a quiet title proceeding, must be filed within the six-month prescriptive period of La. R.S. 47:2287 after due notice and also within the time limits of La. R.S. 47:2266 to prevent entry of judgment quieting title.
This case concerns a tax sale in which Belaire acquired title to property in St. Martin Parish for unpaid taxes in 2017, followed by a petition to quiet title and a reconventional demand by the property owner's succession seeking to annul the sale for lack of pre- and post-sale notice. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that, under the 2008 revisions to the tax sale statutes effective in 2009, failure to provide pre-tax sale notice no longer constitutes an absolute nullity but instead creates a relative nullity governed by La. R.S. 47:2286. The court further ruled that any action to annul such a sale, when filed as a reconventional demand in a quiet title proceeding, must satisfy the prescriptive periods in both La. R.S. 47:2287 and La. R.S. 47:2266, resulting in affirmance in part and reversal in part of the lower courts' rulings on prescription and timeliness.
This case concerns disciplinary proceedings against Judge Donald "Chick" Foret of Louisiana's 24th Judicial District Court, stemming from complaints about his conduct in a second-degree murder trial, statements made during a civil insurance case, and his handling of a class action lawsuit. The Judiciary Commission investigated allegations of inappropriate demeanor, including angry outbursts, use of profanity, and comments indicating bias against certain motions, as well as a failure to recuse himself in a matter where he had prior involvement as counsel. The Louisiana Supreme Court determined that these actions violated the Code of Judicial Conduct regarding judicial temperament, impartiality, and recusal obligations. Weighing factors such as the judge's acknowledgment of misconduct and lack of prior discipline, the court imposed a 30-day suspension without pay along with costs.
This case involved wrongful death and survival claims brought by the children of a nursing home resident against Lexington House, LLC, alleging that malpractice caused the resident's death. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the initial request for a medical review panel filed by the decedent's granddaughter did not toll the prescription period for the plaintiffs' claims because the granddaughter did not qualify as a "claimant" under the Medical Malpractice Act. The court reasoned that only those with a right of action or specified representatives, such as a proper succession representative where the estate has a claim, can serve as claimants to suspend prescription, and neither applied here. Consequently, the court sustained the defendant's exception of prescription and dismissed the claims.
This case involved Louisiana taxpayers who purchased and installed residential solar electric systems in 2015 expecting state income tax credits of up to $12,500 under La. Rev. Stat. 47:6030, but whose claims were denied or reduced after 2015 La. Acts, No. 131 imposed a statewide cap on available credits allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. The plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Department of Revenue seeking a declaratory judgment that the 2015 cap was unconstitutional because it retroactively impaired vested property rights and private contracts. The district court overruled the Department's exception of mootness, found the plaintiffs had standing, and declared the law unconstitutional. On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that a 2017 amendment to the statute cured the alleged constitutional defect and that no secondary claim for monetary relief existed to create a justiciable controversy.
The case concerned a challenge by alcohol industry groups to a New Orleans city ordinance imposing a volume-based gallonage tax on dealers handling high-alcoholic-content beverages, which the plaintiffs argued exceeded the city's authority under the Louisiana Constitution to levy occupational license taxes no greater than those imposed by the state. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring the tax unlawful and unconstitutional. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the tax qualifies as a valid occupational license tax because it is levied on dealers for the privilege of handling such beverages. The court reasoned that the ordinance falls within the city's constitutional taxing power under La. Const. Art. VI, § 28, as it does not exceed the state's comparable tax and is not a prohibited excise tax outside that authority.
In this medical malpractice case, a patient underwent non-emergency gallbladder surgery without the surgeon reviewing pre-operative chest x-ray and EKG results that indicated heart issues, after which the patient suffered a severe heart attack and required a transplant; the jury found the surgeon's breach caused a loss of chance of a better outcome rather than directly causing the heart attack. The trial court applied the Medical Malpractice Act's damages cap to the jury's lump-sum general damages award. The court of appeal conducted de novo review due to perceived inconsistencies in the verdict form, affirmed the lost-chance finding, and awarded additional uncapped special damages. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeal failed to follow established jurisprudence on damages for lost chance of a better outcome and that the jury's lump-sum award was within its discretion, thereby reinstating the jury verdict and trial court judgment.
This case concerned the involuntary termination of a father's parental rights to his minor daughter C.F. after the child was removed from his custody and adjudicated in need of care due to his history of substance abuse and failure to cooperate with services following the mother's death. The district court found that at least one statutory ground for termination existed but ruled that termination was not in the child's best interest. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Department of Children and Family Services proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father had abandoned the child under La. Ch. C. art. 1015(4) by failing to provide support and had failed to comply with his case plan under La. Ch. C. art. 1015(5) with no reasonable expectation of improvement, and that termination served the child's best interest by allowing adoption.
In Philip Shelton v. Nancy Pavon, Dr. Shelton sued to nullify his late wife's change of life insurance beneficiary to her assistant Nancy Pavon, alleging lack of capacity, forgery, or undue influence. Pavon filed a reconventional demand for defamation, prompting Shelton to seek dismissal via a special motion to strike under Louisiana's anti-SLAPP statute, La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 971. The trial court granted the motion, but the court of appeal reversed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The Court held that La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 971(F)(1)(a), which defines acts in furtherance of petition or free speech to include statements made in judicial proceedings, still requires those statements to be made in connection with a public issue under art. 971(A)(1). Because Shelton's petition involved a private beneficiary dispute rather than a public issue, the motion to strike did not apply, and the case was remanded for determination of attorney fees.
The case involved a father's wrongful death and survival claims against Teleflex, Inc., a manufacturer of hydraulic steering systems, after his son died in a 2005 recreational boating accident allegedly caused by a sudden steering failure and the manufacturer's failure to warn of risks. A jury found Teleflex liable under products liability and general maritime law, awarding $125,000 in compensatory damages and $23 million in punitive damages; the trial court granted a new trial after an initial defense verdict, and the court of appeal affirmed. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the liability finding and compensatory award in part but reduced the punitive damages to $4.25 million, holding that the original punitive award was excessive and violated the defendant's constitutional due process rights.
This consolidated case involved tax sale purchasers who sought to quiet title to three condominium units after the owner failed to pay ad valorem taxes, with a mortgagee claiming insufficient post-sale notice of redemption rights. The district court denied the quiet title petitions due to inadequate notice to the mortgagee and gave the mortgagee time to redeem. The court of appeal affirmed on different grounds, holding that the tax collector's failure to provide required post-sale notice under La. Rev. Stat. 47:2156(B) rendered the sales invalid. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the governing statutes permit post-sale notice to be effected by the tax sale purchaser under La. Rev. Stat. 47:2156(A), satisfying the due notification requirement in La. Rev. Stat. 47:2122(4), and remanded for consideration of remaining issues.
The case concerned whether a trial court could permit a jury in a criminal trial to learn of the potential mandatory minimum sentence, including possible life imprisonment, that a defendant might face under Louisiana's Habitual Offender Law if convicted and later sentenced as a multiple offender. The defendant faced charges including possession with intent to distribute heroin and other drug and conspiracy offenses. The State filed a motion in limine to bar any mention of such enhanced sentencing possibilities, but the district court denied it. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed that ruling, holding that questions of possible habitual offender enhancements are too remote from the guilt phase of trial, risk shifting the jury's focus from determining guilt or innocence to sentencing considerations, and could confuse the issues or invite speculation.
In this workers' compensation dispute, claimant Byron Gulley sought approval for a trial of a spinal cord stimulator to treat chronic pain from a 2009 workplace injury after other treatments failed. The Medical Director denied the request under the state's Medical Treatment Guidelines, a decision affirmed by the Office of Workers' Compensation and the court of appeal. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Medical Director and lower tribunals misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the Louisiana Administrative Code on neurostimulation, specifically regarding the topography of pain, and thus misapplied the guidelines to the claimant's case.
The case concerned whether a trial court could allow a criminal defendant to inform the jury about the possible mandatory minimum sentence he might face under Louisiana's Habitual Offender Law if convicted on the current charges and then sentenced as a habitual offender. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the district court's ruling that had denied the state's motion in limine to exclude such information from jury arguments. The court held that the issue of potential enhanced sentencing is too attenuated from the guilt phase of the trial. It reasoned that allowing discussion of the possible life sentence would shift the jury's focus from determining guilt or innocence to sentencing considerations, risking confusion and speculation. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
The case concerned the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana's recommendation for discipline against Justice of the Peace Leroy J. Laiche, Jr., arising from his handling of peace bond matters in two unrelated family disputes. The Louisiana Supreme Court ordered Laiche removed from office, declared his position vacant, barred him from qualifying for judicial office for five years, and assessed him $14,243.80 in costs. The court adopted the Commission's findings that Laiche violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct through serious legal errors, including failing to conduct required hearings and improperly notarizing affidavits, amounting to misconduct warranting removal under Article V, Section 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution.