In State of Louisiana v. Daniel Marshall, the defendant was tried for second-degree murder after fatally shooting Ronald Hodges in a confrontation stemming from a romantic dispute involving Hodges's former partner; Marshall claimed self-defense at trial after Hodges allegedly rushed him. The jury convicted him of the lesser offense of manslaughter, but the court of appeal vacated the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecutor's cross-examination and argument about Marshall's post-Miranda silence violated Doyle v. Ohio and was not harmless. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision and reinstated the conviction and sentence, concluding that any Doyle violation was harmless error in light of the forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts showing Marshall continued firing after the victim fell and turned away, and Marshall's prior felony record that already undermined his credibility. The court emphasized that the guilty verdict was attributable to the strength of the state's case rather than the improper impeachment of Marshall's silence.
This class action lawsuit was brought by former Orleans Parish School Board employees terminated after Hurricane Katrina amid the state's takeover of most local schools under Act 35 and related financial interventions. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the suit in full. It held that res judicata barred the claims because prior related proceedings had resolved the issues, with no exceptional circumstances justifying an exception to that doctrine. The court further concluded that, even absent res judicata, neither the school board nor state defendants had violated the plaintiffs' due process rights in conducting the reductions in force or related notices and procedures.
This case concerned a challenge by teachers' unions and individuals to Act 1 of 2012, a Louisiana law that amended numerous statutes in Title 17 regarding elementary and secondary education, including changes to teacher tenure, performance evaluations, school board powers, superintendent contracts, and reduction-in-force policies. The district court ruled the Act unconstitutional for violating the single-object requirement of La. Const. art. III, § 15(A), which mandates that legislative bills embrace only one object expressed in the title. On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that Act 1 satisfied the requirement because its provisions were all naturally connected and germane to the single unifying object of improving education through tenure reform and effectiveness-based performance standards. The court emphasized a broad interpretation of the single-object rule, noting that a bill may contain multiple provisions so long as they are incidental to one object and that invalidation requires a grave and palpable conflict, which was not shown here. The case was remanded for consideration of the plaintiffs' remaining constitutional claims regarding due process.
This case involved Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC challenging decisions or actions taken by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals regarding its operations as a healthcare provider. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application filed by the healthcare company. One justice indicated a willingness to grant the writ and hear the matter on the merits. The denial leaves the lower court's ruling in place without further review by the high court.
The case Mathews v. Steib was a civil dispute between Dr. Ronnie Mathews, M.D. and Mary Elizabeth Broussard Mathews on one side and Joseph Steib on the other, which reached the Louisiana Supreme Court on a writ application numbered 2012-C-0106. The court denied the writ application without elaboration. Justice Victory noted that he would have granted the writ. No further details about the underlying claims or lower court proceedings appear in the opinion.
The case Evanston Insurance Company v. Kimmel, LLC was an insurance dispute involving a law firm and two insurance carriers. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application for review of a lower court decision. Justice Victory noted that he would have granted the application. As a result, the prior ruling remains in place without further consideration by the state's highest court.
The case Estay v. Cut Off Youth Center, Inc. and Scottsdale Insurance Company reached the Louisiana Supreme Court as an application for supervisory writs. The court denied the writ application without further elaboration. Justices Victory, Knoll, and Guidry dissented from the denial, stating they would have granted the writ.
The case involved a dispute between Roy L. Pilkinton and Amy H. Pilkinton and the energy companies Ashley Ann Energy, L.L.C. and Chesapeake Operating, Inc. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application in the matter. No further details or reasoning appear in the court's order. Justice Victory was recused from participation in the decision.
The case Guidry v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company arose from a dispute between Carl Guidry and his wife and their insurer over a claim. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application for review of the lower court's decision. This action left the prior ruling in place without additional consideration by the state's highest court. Justice Victory noted that he would have granted the writ to examine the issues presented.
The case involves a lawsuit filed by Geraldine Guillory and Linus Guillory against Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc., and its local operator. The Supreme Court of Louisiana considered an application for review designated as No. 2011-C-2811. On February 10, 2012, the court denied the application without providing any accompanying explanation or analysis. Justice Victory noted separately that he would have granted the application.
The case involved plaintiffs Johnnie Bradley and Barry Bradley filing a civil action against 1 SUBWAY, LLC, its insurers, and related parties in Louisiana state court. The Supreme Court of Louisiana issued a one-sentence order denying the writ application numbered 2011-CC-2696. No majority reasoning or opinion was provided with the denial. Justice Victory noted separately that he would have granted the writ.
The case involved Nathaniel Code challenging an action or decision by the Louisiana State Public Safety & Corrections and its Secretary. The Supreme Court of Louisiana denied the application in a brief order. No substantive reasoning or explanation for the denial appears in the opinion, and one justice was recused.
The case involved plaintiffs David O. Bordelon and others bringing claims against Gravity Drainage District No. 4 of Ward 3 of Calcasieu Parish, a governmental entity responsible for drainage matters in Louisiana. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application filed under case number 2011-C-2438, declining to review the lower court's ruling. Justice Victory noted that he would have granted the writ, but the court as a whole declined further consideration of the matter.
The case of Lemoine v. O'Quin involved plaintiffs Earline Lemoine and Jeanine Russell bringing claims against defendant James O'Quin, along with Calthom, LLC and insurers Progressive Insurance Company and USAA Insurance Company. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application in the matter. Justice Victory indicated that he would have granted the writ. No further details on the underlying dispute or reasoning for the denial appear in the opinion.
The case involved Harry Lee, Sheriff of the Parish of Jefferson, and related parties suing Professional Construction Services, Inc., and others in a proceeding that reached the Louisiana Supreme Court under docket number 2011-CC-2560. The court issued a brief per curiam ruling denying both the requested stay and the writ application, leaving the lower court decision undisturbed. Justice Victory noted his disagreement by indicating he would have granted the writ. No substantive facts or legal analysis appear in the opinion excerpt, which consists solely of this procedural disposition.
This case involves a lawsuit by Raymond Hatton against Kimbolyn Stepp, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and Capital Area Transit System, apparently arising from an automobile-related incident. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application for review. Justice Victory indicated he would have granted the application instead. The excerpt provides no further facts or legal analysis.
The case concerned Justice of the Peace Stacie P. Myers' failure to timely file her 2009 personal financial disclosure statement as required by Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XXXIX, which mandates annual filings by May 15 for justices of the peace. After the Judiciary Commission found a willful and knowing violation and recommended penalties, the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the record and determined that Myers had received notice of the requirement and deadline but did not file the short form despite opportunities to comply or contest the allegations. The court concluded the violation was willful and knowing because the non-filing reflected bad faith, such as a desire to avoid the effort of disclosure, and imposed a civil penalty of $500 payable to the state judicial branch.
This case concerns Justice of the Peace Thomas Threet's failure to timely file his 2009 personal financial disclosure statement as required by Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XXXIX, which mandates annual filings by justices of the peace. The Judiciary Commission found that Threet willfully and knowingly violated the rule after receiving proper notice and recommended penalties, which were later amended following related decisions. The court determined that Threet had failed to comply with the disclosure requirement and that his delay after clarification of the rule constituted a willful and knowing violation. Based on the facts and circumstances, including the short and simple nature of the form, the court ordered Threet to pay a civil penalty of $300.00 to the State of Louisiana.
The case involved Justice of the Peace Tina Revette LaGrange's failure to timely file her 2009 personal financial disclosure statement as required by Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XXXIX. The Judiciary Commission initially recommended a higher penalty after finding a willful violation but later amended its recommendation to $200 after related decisions, citing only negligence. The Louisiana Supreme Court found the violation was willful and knowing based on the justice's receipt of required notices, continued delay without sufficient mitigating evidence, and interpretation of "willful and knowing" to include personal or professional gain from non-compliance. The court ordered a civil penalty of $500, within the rule's discretionary limit of up to $50 per day of delay.
This case involves Justice of the Peace David E. Cook's failure to timely file his 2009 personal financial disclosure statement as required by Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XXXIX. The Judiciary Commission recommended a penalty, initially higher but amended to $200 after similar cases, and the Louisiana Supreme Court agreed that Cook acted negligently but not willfully in his noncompliance. The court considered mitigating circumstances such as his unawareness of the rule and his travel to care for his terminally ill mother. Ultimately, the court ordered Cook to pay a civil penalty of $200 to the state.