The case involved a challenge by community groups to St. James Parish's approval of a land use permit for upgrades to an existing methanol production facility, including installation of a pipeline segment through wetlands. The Parish applied its Land Use Plan to approve the project under a Tier 2 review process by the Planning Commission. The court of appeal reversed, finding that the more extensive Tier 3 review by the Parish Council was required. The Louisiana Supreme Court vacated that ruling, holding that courts must defer to a local government's reasonable interpretation of its own land use ordinances unless the decision is arbitrary or capricious.
This case arose from a rear-end car accident in which the at-fault driver's insurer initially paid for repairs to the victim's 2019 Honda CR-V but deducted $313.79 for betterment on worn parts such as the muffler and tire. The victim sued, claiming Louisiana law does not permit such a deduction in third-party tort claims and seeking penalties for the insurer's refusal to pay the full repair amount. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal's ruling that a tortfeasor is not entitled to reduce a victim's property damage recovery for betterment, because Civil Code article 2315 requires full indemnification to restore the victim to the pre-accident position. However, the court reversed the award of bad-faith penalties under La. R.S. 22:1973, holding that the insurer's assertion of a betterment deduction involved a legal issue of first impression rather than a misrepresentation of facts.
This case arose from a 2020 car accident tort suit in which plaintiff Evangelia Bilalis sued defendants Wallace Drennan and Zurich American Insurance Company for injuries. After a jury verdict in her favor, the signed judgment awarded damages plus judicial interest from November 17, 2023 (the verdict date, mislabeled as the date of judicial demand) until paid. Plaintiff moved to enforce the judgment, arguing she was owed additional interest from the actual December 22, 2020 filing date under Louisiana law. The district court and court of appeal granted relief, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that La. R.S. 13:4203 automatically entitles the prevailing party to interest from the date of judicial demand regardless of erroneous language in the final judgment.
This case involved the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana's investigation into Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for alleged ethical violations. The Commission found that she made false statements about her military service during her judicial campaigns, gave misleading information to police regarding a reported car burglary, and withheld or falsified details during the Commission's own investigation. The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the Commission's findings, which were supported by clear and convincing evidence, and ordered the judge's removal from office. The decision emphasized the need to protect public confidence in the judiciary through enforcement of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
This case involved the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana's investigation into Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for alleged ethical violations. The Commission found that she made false statements about her military service during her judicial campaigns, gave misleading information to police regarding a reported car burglary, and withheld or falsified details during the Commission's own investigation. The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the Commission's findings, which were supported by clear and convincing evidence, and ordered the judge's removal from office. The decision emphasized the need to protect public confidence in the judiciary through enforcement of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
This case arose from a 2017 rear-end collision in which Tracey Day was injured by an 18-wheeler driven by Elvis Dean Thompson in the course of his employment. The Days sued Thompson, his employer, and the insurer for damages, including claims that Tracey Day could not sit for extended periods. On the first day of trial, the district court excused Day from attending except to testify; defendants then obtained surveillance video of her over the next two days and sought to introduce it for impeachment. The trial court excluded the video without an in-camera review, and the Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to examine that ruling. The Court held that the failure to review the footage was an abuse of discretion but affirmed the exclusion after its own review, concluding the video did not depict Day performing any activity she had testified she could not do and therefore was not proper impeachment evidence.