Jefferson D. Hughes 3

The case involved a negligence claim by Theopholia Thomas against BNSF Railway Company after his garbage truck became stuck at a railroad crossing due to a narrow planking and hole, leading to a collision with an oncoming train that caused injuries. A jury found BNSF negligent and assigned it 85% fault and Thomas 15% fault. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the writ solely to review the fault allocation, amended the judgment to assign 25% fault to BNSF and 75% to Thomas, and affirmed as amended, based on the evidence regarding the parties' respective conduct and the condition of the crossing.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State of Louisiana v. Maya Jones, the defendant, charged with first-degree murder and related offenses in a capital case, sought funding from the Office of the State Public Defender for an expert to support a change-of-venue motion but was denied under La. R.S. 15:168(E)(3), which bars courts from ordering such payments. The district court ruled the statute unconstitutional as conflicting with Louisiana Constitution Article 5, § 16(A), which grants district courts exclusive original jurisdiction over felony cases, and the Supreme Court affirmed this holding. The core reasoning was that the statute improperly restricts judicial authority to ensure due process and effective assistance of counsel in felony proceedings, allowing courts to issue mandamus orders for constitutionally required resources even when they involve unfunded mandates. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case arose from a September 2021 car accident in Louisiana in which North Carolina resident Kevin Ray Worrell, working as an electrical lineman to restore power after Hurricane Ida under an inter-municipal assistance agreement, collided with the plaintiffs' vehicle. The plaintiffs sued Worrell, his employer the City of Wilson, North Carolina, and related insurers for personal injuries; the defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that Worrell was entitled to immunity under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, La. R.S. 29:735. The federal district court granted the motions, concluding that Worrell qualified as a “representative” of a Louisiana political subdivision and was engaged in emergency recovery activities even while driving back to his lodging. On certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, the Louisiana Supreme Court answered that an out-of-state employee working under such an agreement is not a “representative” of the State of Louisiana or one of its political subdivisions within the meaning of the statute and therefore declined to reach the second certified question concerning commuting travel.

torts & liability

The case involves Christopher Cloudie, charged with first-degree rape and aggravated crime against nature for allegedly performing oral sex on his eight-year-old son. The central issue was whether a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner could testify at trial as an expert and state her diagnosis of "child sexual abuse" based on the child's medical incident history, even though a physical exam showed no findings. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court's ruling that had permitted the expert testimony. The court held that the expert's methodology was not sufficiently reliable under the applicable evidentiary standards, as it lacked an established scientific basis or error rate for diagnosing sexual abuse without physical evidence and risked improperly bolstering the child's credibility.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dwayne Williams seeking compensation under Louisiana's wrongful conviction statute, La. R.S. 15:572.8, for time served after his conviction was vacated based on factual innocence. The State moved to stay the state proceedings under La. C.C.P. art. 532 pending resolution of Williams's parallel federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from the same events. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the stay, reasoning that the statute requires prompt resolution of compensation claims, the federal claim addresses constitutional violations rather than factual innocence, and concerns about double recovery were speculative since no recovery had occurred yet.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rightsfederal power

This case involved a dispute over whether a plaintiff had timely requested service of process on the defendants under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1201(C), which requires such a request within ninety days of filing a petition. The plaintiff had requested service and paid the initial fees with the filing but paid additional sheriff's fees billed later, outside the ninety-day window. The district court and appellate court rejected the defendants' exception of insufficiency of service and motion to dismiss, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the statutory term "request" means simply to ask for service and does not require simultaneous payment of all fees, which are governed by separate statutes on court costs. The opinion emphasized applying the plain and unambiguous meaning of the word without adding unstated requirements.

procedure

This case involved parents John and Analise Noehl, who were charged as principals in the second-degree murder and cruelty to a juvenile of their infant son after he suffered severe injuries including skull fractures and healing rib fractures. The defendants moved to suppress statements they made to detectives at the hospital while their child was being treated, arguing the statements were obtained without Miranda warnings because they were in custody. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed that ruling and remanded for further proceedings. The majority held that the questioning did not constitute custodial interrogation, as the detectives approached the parents at the hospital, the interviews were brief, conducted in plainclothes with the door closed but without restraints or indications of arrest, and a reasonable person would not have felt their freedom significantly deprived. A dissent argued that under the totality of circumstances, including separation from the child and each other, the parents were in custody.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between ex-spouses over whether the former wife was entitled to a community property share of $16,949,000 in liquidated damages paid to her ex-husband, a college football coach, after his employment contract with LSU was terminated without cause in 2021. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' judgments favoring the ex-husband and rendered judgment awarding the ex-wife her share. The court reasoned that the relevant contract provisions, including the liquidated damages clause, became effective on January 14, 2020—prior to the filing of the divorce petition on February 26, 2020—making the guaranteed benefit a community asset under Louisiana law, and that unsuccessful attempts to retroactively alter the effective date did not change this classification.

family lawproperty

This case concerns the validity of conditional legacies in the 2007 will and 2009 codicil of Cladie J. Wade, who directed that her daughter Alma sell a California rental property (which Cladie did not own) and divide the proceeds with her son Carl, or else forfeit her other bequests to Carl. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings and held that the codicil did not revoke the condition in the will, that the condition in the will remained valid and enforceable, and that the condition was not contrary to law or good morals under La. C.C. art. 1519. The court reasoned that Alma was not a forced heir, the testator was not attempting to control property she did not own after death, and the condition merely presented Alma with an optional choice tied to receiving an inheritance. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

family lawproperty

The case concerned Deon Ray Bartie, who was convicted after a jury trial of second degree murder under La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(3) for distributing methamphetamine to the victim, who died from poly drug toxicity after ingesting multiple substances including the methamphetamine. The trial court imposed a life sentence along with concurrent terms on related drug and weapons charges. The Court of Appeal reversed the murder conviction for insufficient evidence, finding no proof that the methamphetamine supplied by the defendant was a direct cause of death. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the state's writ application but affirmed the reversal, holding that the evidence did not establish the required causal link under the statute when other lethal drugs were also present.

criminal law

This case arose from a 2018 car accident tort suit in which the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of La. R.S. 13:4163 after defense counsel, who were also state legislators, repeatedly invoked the statute to obtain automatic, ex parte continuances of scheduled court dates and deadlines. The district court upheld the statute, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, declaring La. R.S. 13:4163 unconstitutional on its face because it improperly strips courts of discretion over their dockets and mandates continuances without regard to the interests of other parties or judicial efficiency. The court remanded the matter with instructions for the district court to hold contradictory hearings under La. C.C.P. art. 1605 on all contested continuance motions going forward.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a breach of contract suit filed by Advanced Benefit Concepts, Inc. (ABC) against Access Health entities seeking unpaid fees under an agreement for identifying and establishing healthcare benefit relationships with employer groups, including the State of Louisiana's Office of Group Benefits. Access Health defended and counterclaimed that the contract was an absolute nullity because ABC and its principal failed to register as lobbyists or the agreement as required by the Executive Branch Lobbying Act (La. R.S. 49:78.1). The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and held that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Access Health's affirmative defenses and reconventional demand regarding the contract's validity. The core reasoning was that original jurisdiction over civil matters such as contract enforcement and damages rests with district courts under La. Const. Art. V, § 16, while the Board of Ethics has no authority to resolve breach of contract claims or award monetary relief.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose from a 2018 school refurbishment contract between the State and Law Industries, which subcontracted asbestos abatement work to Advanced Environmental Consulting, Inc. (AEC); after the State terminated the contract due to asbestos findings, AEC asserted a Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA) claim against the State in 2021, alleging unfair practices such as withholding information and improper termination standards. The district court denied the State's exceptions of no cause of action and peremption, but the court of appeal dismissed the LUTPA claim as perempted under a one-year period. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the peremption dismissal, sustained the no cause of action exception, affirmed the overall dismissal of AEC's LUTPA claim against the State on that basis, and remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the proper valuation method for assessing ad valorem taxes on a low-income housing development owned by Opportunity Homes Limited Partnership in Orleans Parish for the 2014 and 2015 tax years. The parish assessor valued the property at over $4 million using the market approach, while the Louisiana Tax Commission used the income approach to set the fair market value at $1,525,000 for both years, excluding low-income housing tax credits. The district court upheld the Commission's lower valuation, but the appellate court reversed in favor of the assessor. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the Commission's decisions, holding that the income approach was the appropriate method under applicable regulations for affordable rental housing and that the facts supported the lower valuation.

taxesproperty

In State of Louisiana v. Calvin King, a jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder and armed robbery based on evidence including one eyewitness account of an armed home invasion and kidnapping, a fingerprint match on duct tape, and inconsistencies in the testimony regarding the events leading to the victim's death. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a new trial under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 851(1), finding the verdict contrary to the law and evidence due to the eyewitness's internal inconsistencies and conflicts with physical evidence and reconstruction testimony. The court of appeal reversed that ruling, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision and reinstated the trial court's order for a new trial. The core reasoning was that article 851(1) permits a trial court to grant a new trial on that basis without an additional finding of injustice, and appellate courts are prohibited from reviewing the trial court's factual determinations in this context.

criminal lawprocedure

In this criminal case, a jury convicted Calvin King of second-degree murder and armed robbery based primarily on the testimony of one eyewitness regarding a home invasion and the victim's subsequent killing. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a new trial under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 851(1), citing inconsistencies in the eyewitness's account and conflicts with physical evidence in what was a circumstantial case. The court of appeal reversed that ruling, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision and reinstated the trial court's order for a new trial. The court reasoned that article 851(1) allows a trial judge to grant a new trial when the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence without any threshold requirement to find an injustice to the defendant, and that appellate courts are prohibited from reviewing the trial court's factual findings in criminal cases.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a defendant charged with killing a pastor, where defense counsel allegedly entered into an agreement with prosecutors to provide witness information and waive spousal privilege in exchange for presenting the case to a grand jury and abiding by its decision on whether to charge manslaughter or second degree murder. After the grand jury returned a manslaughter indictment, a new prosecutor presented additional evidence to a second grand jury, which returned a second degree murder indictment; the state then dismissed the first charge and proceeded on the second. The defendant moved to quash the new indictment, arguing breach of the agreement, and the district court granted the motion. The court of appeal reversed, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the district court's ruling quashing the indictment, finding an enforceable agreement that bound the state.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved attorney James E. Boren, who was retained by an incarcerated client to investigate possible post-conviction relief and who submitted a public records request to the St. Landry Parish District Attorney for files related to the client's 2013 rape convictions. The District Attorney denied the request after Boren declined to provide additional information required by La. R.S. 44:31.1, and both the district court and court of appeal upheld the denial. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that La. R.S. 44:31.1 applies only to incarcerated individuals themselves and not to attorneys making records requests on their behalf. The court therefore directed the district court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling production of the records under La. R.S. 44:31 and 44:32 without regard to the extra requirements of 44:31.1 and to award attorney fees, costs, and damages under La. R.S. 44:35.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a personal injury claim by Danielle Larson, who was bitten by a pony while visiting and feeding horses at Equest Farm in New Orleans, resulting in the loss of her thumb. The central issue was whether the Equine Immunity Statute, La. R.S. 9:2795.3, shielded the farm and its insurer from liability. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the statute applied because Larson was a participant in equine activity. The court of appeal reversed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the statute's applicability, including whether Larson qualified as a participant, the presence and effect of warning signs, and whether she had permission to feed the horses. The matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether Louisiana could timely prosecute Channing R. Gray for obstruction of justice after dismissing a second-degree murder charge arising from the 2007 killing of Derroceus Abney, whose body had been concealed in a freezer bearing Gray's fingerprint. The murder prosecution was dismissed in 2015 due to unavailable evidence and witnesses, and the State filed the obstruction charge the same day, relying on a six-month extension period under La. C.Cr.P. art. 576 for a lesser offense based on the same facts. The trial court denied Gray's motion to quash the new charge as untimely, but the court of appeal granted the motion, concluding the charges were not based on the same facts. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that both charges arose from the same underlying facts involving the murder and concealment of the body, thereby satisfying art. 576 and reinstating the trial court's ruling.

criminal lawprocedure