This case arose after Beverly Smith received an assignment of rights from an insured driver and sued GoAuto Insurance Company (as successor to Gramercy) for bad faith under La. R.S. 22:1973, alleging the insurer failed to settle a 2010 auto accident claim within policy limits, resulting in an excess judgment. GoAuto raised an exception of prescription, arguing the claim was a delictual action subject to a one-year period, while Smith contended it was contractual and subject to ten years. The district court overruled the exception, the court of appeal denied writs, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that an insurer’s statutory duty of good faith does not exist separately from its contractual obligations but instead emanates from the insured-insurer relationship, making first-party bad faith claims subject to the ten-year prescriptive period under La. C.C. art. 3499. Consequently, Smith’s claim, filed within ten years of the underlying judgment, was timely.
The case concerned a dispute between two creditors seeking to attach the same shipment of pig iron owned by a common debtor that had failed to deliver under separate contracts containing arbitration clauses. One creditor had filed suit in federal court to compel arbitration and obtained a writ of attachment under Louisiana's non-resident attachment statute, while the other challenged whether such attachment was available in an action that did not directly seek a money judgment. The Louisiana Supreme Court answered a certified question from the U.S. Fifth Circuit by holding that La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 3542 permits attachment in aid of arbitration when the underlying claim originates from a demand for money damages and the party meets the statutory requirements for the writ. The majority reached this conclusion after examining the statute's text and purpose in the context of provisional remedies to secure potential judgments.
This case involved the termination of parental rights of father C.K.D. regarding his children A.L.D. and L.S.D. in Louisiana. The district court terminated the father's rights based on his failure to comply with a case plan addressing substance abuse and other requirements, finding it in the children's best interests. The court of appeal reversed, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the termination, holding that the state proved the grounds under Children's Code article 1015(6) by clear and convincing evidence and that the district court did not err. The reasoning centered on the father's ongoing drug use, which led to the children testing positive for methamphetamines, and his inability to provide a stable home.
The case involved Brian Douglas Horn, who was indicted, tried, and convicted by a jury in DeSoto Parish of first-degree murder of 12-year-old Justin Bloxom, after which the jury recommended and the trial court imposed a death sentence. On direct appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court under the state constitution, the defendant raised seventy assignments of error, including a claim that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated. The court found merit in the right-to-counsel claim, vacated the conviction and sentence, and remanded the matter to the district court for a new trial. The ruling was based solely on the constitutional violation without addressing the remaining assignments of error or the underlying facts of the crime.
The case involved a challenge to a warrantless search of probationer Avery Julien's residence conducted by two probation officers who were not assigned to his case, along with members of a multi-agency law enforcement task force. The officers discovered firearms and ammunition during the search, leading to charges for possession of a firearm by a felon and illegal possession of a stolen firearm. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. The court reasoned that the search violated La. C.Cr.P. art. 895(A)(13)(a) because it was not performed by the assigned probation officer and therefore also constituted an unreasonable search under Article I, §5 of the Louisiana Constitution, requiring exclusion of the evidence under La. C.Cr.P. art. 703(C).
The case concerned a warrantless search of probationer Kayla Brignac's residence conducted by multiple law enforcement agencies, including probation officers not assigned to her, which uncovered drug evidence leading to possession charges. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the search violated La. C.Cr.P. art. 895(A)(13)(a), which requires such searches to be performed by the specific probation officer assigned to the individual, and that this statutory violation rendered the search unconstitutional under Article I, §5 of the Louisiana Constitution. Because the search was invalid, the court ruled that the evidence must be excluded under La. C.Cr.P. art. 703(C), reversing the court of appeal and reinstating the district court's suppression order.