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.
This case concerned the interpretation of Louisiana's Habitual Offender Law, specifically whether time spent incarcerated for a misdemeanor offense is excluded when calculating the five-year cleansing period under La. R.S. 15:529.1(C)(1) that resets the use of prior felony convictions for sentencing enhancement. Defendant Christopher Diano, convicted of a new felony in 2023, moved to quash the state's habitual offender bill based on three predicate felonies from 2009-2013, arguing more than five years had elapsed since completing parole on those offenses in 2015; the state countered that approximately 180 days of misdemeanor incarceration in 2018-2019 should be excluded from the calculation. The district court granted the motion to quash, holding that only incarceration or supervision tied to the predicate felonies suspends the cleansing period, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court's core reasoning was that the statutory language and purpose of the law limit the exclusion to periods attributable to the listed predicate offenses, as a broader reading excluding any incarceration could produce absurd results.
The case involved a series of public records requests by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to Louisiana State University (LSU) seeking records related to research on wild songbirds conducted in a professor's laboratory, including veterinary care, disposition, acquisition, correspondence, and video recordings. After LSU failed to produce the records, PETA filed suit under the Louisiana Public Records Act seeking a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, holding that the requested records were subject to production under the Act. The core reasoning was that the records were public records kept in the course of public business and no applicable exceptions under the statute prevented their disclosure, despite arguments regarding ongoing research and privacy concerns.
This case concerned whether the Louisiana legislature could constitutionally revive previously prescribed civil claims for sexual abuse of minors through 2021 La. Acts 322 and 2022 La. Acts 386. The Louisiana Supreme Court vacated its original opinion, affirmed the district court's ruling, and held that the revival provisions are constitutional and apply retroactively. The court reasoned that the legislature expressly stated its intent for retroactive application, that the defense of prescription is not a fundamental right under the state constitution, and that the law satisfies rational basis review because it is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of addressing child sexual abuse. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
This case involved a petition for post-conviction relief filed by Darrell J. Robinson, who was convicted in 2001 of four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed claims that the prosecution had suppressed material impeachment and exculpatory evidence and presented false or misleading testimony to the jury at trial. The court found these actions violated Robinson's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois. As a result, the court vacated the conviction and sentence and remanded the matter for a new trial. Dissenting justices argued that the withheld evidence was not sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict.
This case concerns a post-conviction relief petition filed by Darrell J. Robinson, who was convicted in 2001 of four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Robinson claimed the State suppressed material exculpatory and impeachment evidence and presented false testimony at trial, in violation of his due process rights. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the prosecution's actions breached the standards set forth in Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois because the withheld evidence was material to the outcome. As a result, the court vacated Robinson's conviction and sentence and remanded the matter for a new trial.
The case involved defendant Jose Sagastume, who was convicted by a jury of domestic abuse battery involving strangulation. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in denying his challenges for cause against two prospective jurors (a retired police officer and a former prosecutor), but defense counsel had not objected to those rulings during voir dire and instead used peremptory challenges to remove them. The court of appeal set aside the conviction, finding the claims preserved despite the lack of formal objections. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that La. C.Cr.P. art. 800(A) requires a contemporaneous objection to preserve a denial of a cause challenge for appellate review. Because no such objection occurred, the court reinstated the conviction and sentence.
This case involves a challenge to Louisiana's law allowing non-unanimous jury verdicts (ten of twelve jurors) for felonies committed before January 1, 2019. The district court declared the regime unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. The Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the district court's ruling and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the district court erred by raising the constitutional issue sua sponte and by relying on a nonbinding earlier district court decision in a separate case rather than addressing the state's motion on its merits.
The case involved the Louisiana Attorney General suing corporate defendants that had contracted to serve as the state's fiscal intermediary for processing Medicaid pharmacy claims through the Louisiana Medicare Management Information System (LMMIS). The defendants were accused of causing overpayments to providers through improper operation and management of the system, with claims based on fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and related statutes. The lower appellate court had sustained an exception of no right of action, dismissing the suit. The Louisiana Supreme Court vacated that ruling, holding that the Attorney General has the capacity and right to prosecute the action because the Department of Health had delegated administrative Medicaid functions to the defendants, who accepted them contractually, allowing the state to protect its interests in program funds.
This case involves a post-divorce community property partition in which the former husband sought reimbursement and classification of a $250,000 promissory note as a community obligation. The loan, secured by a mortgage on the family home, was obtained through forgery of the wife's signature and concealed from her, though its proceeds paid community debts; the husband had previously represented to the court in his attorney disciplinary proceeding that he accepted sole financial responsibility for the loan. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision classifying the loan as a community obligation and requiring the wife to reimburse payments, instead reinstating the trial court's ruling that it was the husband's separate obligation. The core reasoning applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel, holding that the husband's prior statements in the disciplinary matter precluded him from shifting responsibility to the wife or former community property in the partition litigation.
The case involved a biological mother who petitioned to terminate a guardianship order placing her child with the child's paternal great-aunt and to regain custody. The district court terminated the guardianship and awarded joint custody with the mother as domiciliary custodian, but the court of appeal reversed, reinstating the guardianship. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision, holding that modification or termination of guardianship under the Children's Code Article 724 requires the moving party to prove by clear and convincing evidence a substantial and material change in circumstances meeting specific statutory criteria, which differs from ordinary custody proceedings under the Civil Code. The Court found the mother had not met this evidentiary burden.
The case concerned Rogers Lacaze's post-conviction challenge to his 1995 triple-murder conviction and death sentence, focusing on whether the trial judge should have been recused. The U.S. Supreme Court had remanded the matter for consideration of whether the judge's alleged involvement in an internal police investigation over the release of a 9 mm gun used in the crimes created an unconstitutionally high risk of actual bias. On remand, the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the facts surrounding the investigation and the judge's disputed signature on a release order. The court concluded that any connection was too remote and attenuated to meet the constitutional standard for required recusal under due process. Accordingly, it upheld the denial of the recusal claim, reversed the trial court's grant of a new trial, and reinstated the conviction.
This case involved a challenge by Lee Rand and other plaintiffs to the City of New Orleans' administrative review procedures for traffic camera citations issued under the Automated Traffic Enforcement System, alleging that the process violated due process and access to courts under the Louisiana Constitution. The district court declared the procedures unconstitutional, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the matter de novo and found that the City had amended the relevant ordinances and dismissed the citations at issue. Because the plaintiffs had effectively obtained the relief sought through changes to the system, the court held that the case was moot with no applicable exceptions. The court therefore reversed the district court's judgment and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
In this criminal case, Derrick A. Dotson was convicted of forcible rape based on DNA evidence linking him to a 1996 assault, after the jury could not reach a verdict on a separate 1994 charge. The court of appeal had reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror whose mother had been the victim of a violent crime, as the juror gave an equivocal response about her ability to remain impartial. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the state's writ and reversed the appellate decision, reasoning that the voir dire record lacked clarifying information on the juror's equivocal answer but showed other responses indicating impartiality, warranting deference to the trial court's ruling on the challenge. The matter was remanded to the appellate court to address the defendant's remaining issues on appeal.
The case involved charges against Leslie C. Thompson, mayor of Jonesboro, for three counts of malfeasance in office stemming from alleged failures to cooperate with the legislative auditor, maintain public records, and direct town operations in compliance with state law between 2007 and 2012. The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and procedural rulings from the trial and appellate courts. It determined that the evidence supported a conviction only on Count I but not on Counts II and III, and that the trial court erred by denying a mandatory mistrial after the prosecutor made an improper reference to race before the jury. The court therefore reversed the appellate judgment, vacated all convictions and sentences, and remanded the matter for a new trial solely on Count I.