This case involved the validity of a notarial will executed by John Wallace Frabbiele, who initialed the first two pages of his three-page testament and signed only the last page. The trial court and appellate court upheld the will as valid under La. C.C. art. 1577, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the statute requires the testator to "sign his name" on each separate page, and initials alone do not satisfy this mandatory requirement. As a result, the failure to sign each page constitutes a material deviation that renders the testament an absolute nullity.
The case involved Jaylon K. Brown, who was tried and convicted on two counts of second degree murder and manslaughter after a jury trial in Iberville Parish. During the proceedings, the district court removed a juror observed repeatedly sleeping through witness testimony and video evidence despite multiple warnings, replacing her with an alternate. Brown claimed this action, taken outside his presence and without a hearing, violated his constitutional and statutory rights to have his case decided by the jurors selected. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, reasoning that the juror's chronic inability to stay awake after interventions constituted grounds for removal and that no hearing was required where defense counsel neither requested one nor timely objected to the procedure.
The case involved a Louisiana parish government seeking insurance coverage for hurricane damage to hundreds of public properties, with the domestic insurers attempting to enforce arbitration clauses requiring proceedings in New York under New York law. The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed three certified questions from a federal district court regarding the validity of such arbitration provisions in surplus lines insurance policies issued to political subdivisions. It held that a 2020 statutory amendment permitting certain forum-selection clauses did not repeal the general prohibition on arbitration clauses in insurance contracts, that a separate statute barring arbitration in public contracts applies to insurance policies, and that equitable estoppel could not be used by one insurer to enforce another's arbitration clause or applied to public bodies without meeting a heightened standard. The court's reasoning rested on principles of statutory interpretation, distinguishing arbitration clauses from venue provisions and emphasizing legislative intent to protect access to Louisiana courts and public contracting rules.
This case involved challenges by defendants Erik Nunez, Brandon Liccardi, and Tyrone Brown to the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court's system for randomly allotting multi-count felony cases to judges, which assigns based on the earliest alleged offense date when that date is uncertain. The defendants moved to quash their allotments, arguing the process violated Louisiana District Court Rule 14.0 and their due process rights by potentially allowing prosecutorial manipulation in selecting judges. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the allotment method was sufficiently random because it was tethered to the defendants' conduct rather than giving the District Attorney unchecked discretion to choose a judge. The court reversed the Court of Appeal's grants of the motions to quash and orders for re-allotment, reinstated the trial courts' denials of those motions, and remanded for further proceedings, finding no evidence of actual manipulation or prejudice. The decisions otherwise affirmed the Court of Appeal.
This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Calvin Arrant, who was injured in a work-related vehicle accident and sought approval for a lumbar spine MRI recommended by his orthopedic surgeon. After the Office of Workers' Compensation medical director denied the requests twice, Arrant filed a disputed claim form more than 15 days later, leading the hearing officer to sustain the defendants' exception of prescription based on an administrative rule requiring appeals within that timeframe. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that a statutory prescriptive period cannot be shortened by an administrative rule, ruling that the hearing officer erred as a matter of law in dismissing the claim on timeliness grounds. The court reversed and vacated the prescription ruling, remanding for consideration of whether the medical director properly applied the medical treatment guidelines, while affirming the judgment in other respects.
This case involved royalty owners suing mineral lessees and operators for alleged losses of hydrocarbons from two oil and gas wells, claiming the defendants violated the Mineral Code by imprudently operating the wells and damaging the reservoirs. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed the claims with prejudice, finding the plaintiffs had not proven causation and crediting the defendants' experts over the plaintiffs'. The court of appeal reversed, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the district court's judgment, concluding that the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations had a reasonable basis in the record and were not manifestly erroneous.