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.
In this workers’ compensation dispute, claimant Darvel Burgess sought payment from his employer, the Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, for an outstanding $13,110 bill for prescription medications filled by an out-of-state pharmacy, Injured Workers Pharmacy. The employer had directed use of its approved in-state pharmacy network and refused the bill. The Louisiana Supreme Court resolved a split among the circuit courts of appeal by holding that, under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act, the employer holds the right to choose the pharmacy. The court reversed the lower courts’ rulings that favored employee choice and remanded the case to the Office of Workers’ Compensation to determine whether the out-of-state provider was permissible and to calculate any reimbursement due under the applicable fee schedule and statutes.
This medical malpractice case stems from the death of a seven-month-old infant after treatment in an emergency room by defendant Dr. Rhoda Jones. A jury found in favor of the defendant, after which the plaintiffs sought a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial; the district court granted the JNOV and conditionally granted a new trial, but the court of appeal reversed and reinstated the jury verdict. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the JNOV, finding insufficient evidence to support it, but reversed the court of appeal on the new trial issue and reinstated the district court's grant of a new trial under La. C.C.P. art. 1973, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining there were good grounds for a new trial. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
This case involved allegations against Judge Darryl A. Derbigny of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court that he improperly accepted supplemental insurance coverage and benefits, including whole life policies and an Exec-U-Care program, with premiums and reimbursements paid from the court's Judicial Expense Fund in violation of La. R.S. 13:691. The Judiciary Commission recommended public censure, reimbursement of over $57,000, and payment of costs, based on claims of ethical misconduct under the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Louisiana Constitution. The Louisiana Supreme Court found that the Office of Special Counsel did not prove sanctionable misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, but determined the judge was not entitled to the unauthorized benefits. As a result, the court ordered Judge Derbigny to reimburse the fund $10,002.58 for out-of-pocket amounts received under the Exec-U-Care program while declining to impose costs or further sanctions.
The case involved Robert Glen Coleman, who was charged with the first-degree murder of 70-year-old Julian Brandon during a home invasion robbery on January 1, 2003, in which Brandon was shot and stabbed and his wife was also attacked. After a retrial due to a Batson violation in jury selection during the first trial, a Caddo Parish jury convicted Coleman of first-degree murder and unanimously imposed the death penalty based on four aggravating circumstances. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after finding no errors in the guilt phase but vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing due to the state's failure to provide sufficient notice of evidence of an unadjudicated murder introduced during the penalty phase.
The case concerned whether the Sledge Jeansonne Louisiana Insurance Fraud Prevention Act and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act could be applied retroactively to a doctor's federal guilty plea for health care fraud involving Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers between 2003 and 2009. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the State's claims for penalties under both statutes for conduct predating their effective dates. The core reasoning was that the statutes regulate the underlying fraudulent acts rather than the subsequent guilty plea, and applying them would impermissibly attach new civil consequences to past criminal conduct, as both acts operate only prospectively. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on any remaining claims.
The case involved the State of Louisiana bringing civil claims against Dr. Lynn E. Foret for insurance fraud penalties and unfair trade practices based on his 2013 federal guilty plea to health care fraud involving billing misconduct from 2003 to 2009. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the State's claims under the Sledge Jeansonne Louisiana Insurance Fraud Prevention Act entirely and under the Unfair Trade Practices Act for pre-2006 conduct. The court held that both statutes apply only prospectively because they regulate the underlying fraudulent acts rather than the later guilty plea, and neither statute clearly expressed an intent for retroactive application. The case was remanded for further proceedings on any remaining issues.
Patricia Ann Thompson sued Winn-Dixie after slipping and falling on a puddle of water in front of a meat case where a floor mat had been rolled up by an employee of subcontractor KAP Cleaning Services. A jury allocated 70% fault to KAP and 30% to Winn-Dixie, but the court of appeal held Winn-Dixie 100% at fault under merchant liability statutes. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal, reinstating the jury verdict and the trial court's equal division of costs. The court reasoned that KAP's employee created the greater risk by rolling up the mat and leaving the area without warning signs, while Winn-Dixie retained ultimate responsibility for floor safety, supporting the jury's allocation under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 and comparative fault rules.
This case involved a legal malpractice claim by Tracy Ray Lomont against her former attorney, Michelle Myer-Bennett, arising from the attorney's failure to record a community property partition agreement in a divorce proceeding, which allowed a lien to attach to Lomont's home. The district court and court of appeal sustained the defendant's exception of peremption, dismissing the suit as untimely under the three-year peremptive period in La. R.S. 9:5605. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the attorney's fraudulent conduct in concealing the malpractice invoked an exception under La. R.S. 9:5605(E), making the one-year prescriptive period applicable, which began to run only upon the plaintiff's discovery of the deception on June 28, 2012, rendering the July 12, 2012 filing timely.
This case involved the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana's investigation into Judge Sheva M. Sims of the Shreveport City Court following an April 2012 incident in which she declared an assistant city prosecutor in contempt and dismissed fifteen criminal cases on the docket. The Commission recommended a 90-day suspension without pay based on findings that the judge's actions stemmed from prior professional disagreements and violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Louisiana Supreme Court determined that the violations were supported by clear and convincing evidence but imposed a reduced 30-day suspension without pay, along with an order to reimburse the Commission's costs of $4,691.95. The court's reasoning centered on the judge's failure to maintain impartiality, follow proper procedures for contempt findings, and ensure fair handling of cases, while noting mitigating factors such as her limited judicial experience.
The case involved Michael Read suing Willwoods Community after his termination as Executive Director, claiming he had a five-year fixed-term employment contract based on discussions during his hiring. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings, holding that no such fixed-term contract existed. The court reasoned that the evidence, including interview statements and lack of a written agreement, did not establish a meeting of the minds on a specific employment duration, making Read an at-will employee terminable at any time without damages for dismissal.
This case involved a juvenile, J.M., charged in Orleans Parish with simple battery and simple criminal damage to property. After the juvenile answered the petition with a denial on February 25, 2013, Louisiana Children's Code Article 877 required the state to commence an adjudication hearing within 90 days. The state obtained one extension but, after the juvenile court denied a second continuance, entered a nolle prosequi, dismissed the case, and immediately refiled the same charges. The juvenile moved to dismiss the refiled petition on July 16, 2013, arguing the time limit had expired; the juvenile court denied the motion, but the court of appeal reversed. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the mandatory 90-day deadline is not suspended or extended by a nolle prosequi and refiling absent a timely showing of good cause.
This case involved a 2004 tax sale of residential property in New Orleans that was later declared an absolute nullity because the taxing authority failed to provide sufficient pre-sale notice and advertisement. Mooring Tax Asset Group, the purchaser at the tax sale, sought to quiet title, but the current owner, Roderick James, successfully challenged the sale's validity and sought immediate cancellation of the tax deed without reimbursing Mooring. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that under La. Const. art. VII, §25(C), a tax sale purchaser is entitled to reimbursement of its costs before the tax deed can be canceled, and that this obligation falls on the current property owner who seeks to clear the title. The court reversed the lower courts' rulings that had ordered cancellation without requiring payment of costs and remanded for further proceedings. The decision emphasized that the recorded tax deed put subsequent purchasers on notice of the encumbrance, making the current owner responsible for resolving it.
The case involved Maurice Addison Hawley, who was charged with driving under the influence after a breath test using an Intoxilyzer 5000 showed a blood alcohol level above the legal limit. Hawley objected to the admission of the machine recertification form and the maintenance technician qualification form without live testimony from the certifying technician, arguing that it violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The trial court allowed the forms into evidence, leading Hawley to plead guilty while reserving the right to appeal. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the forms were nontestimonial and thus not subject to Confrontation Clause requirements under precedents like Melendez-Diaz, reversed the court of appeal's decision vacating the conviction, and reinstated Hawley's conviction.
The case concerned a contract dispute between Shelter Mutual Insurance Company and Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc., in which Shelter sued Rimkus in Louisiana state court over allegedly deficient engineering and expert services related to a hurricane damage claim. Rimkus moved to dismiss or transfer based on a forum selection clause in the engagement terms designating Harris County, Texas as the exclusive venue. The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed a circuit split on whether such clauses violate state public policy and held they do not, reversing the lower courts' denial of Rimkus's exception of improper venue. The core reasoning examined the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure provisions on venue waivers, concluding that forum selection clauses are enforceable contractual terms that do not contravene any statutory prohibition or strong public policy.