In this personal injury case arising from a 2014 worksite accident, Shane Salathe was injured while working for Fleming Construction on a sewer project for the Parish of Jefferson. After Salathe’s death, his parents substituted as plaintiffs, and Amerisure Insurance Company intervened to recover workers’ compensation benefits it had paid, claiming reimbursement from the Parish, its insurer AAIC, and the Salathes. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Amerisure’s intervention with prejudice, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The core reasoning was that the construction contract required Fleming to obtain workers’ compensation coverage containing a waiver of subrogation in favor of the Parish, and Amerisure’s policy included exactly such an endorsement, barring its recovery claims.
The case involved a workplace injury lawsuit by Shane Salathe, an employee of contractor Fleming Construction, who was severely injured while working on a Jefferson Parish sewer lift station project. Salathe sued the Parish for negligence in maintaining the hatch door that caused his fall, and the Parish and its insurer (AAIC) sought coverage under insurance policies that Fleming had obtained from Amerisure and Alterra, as required by the construction contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to Amerisure and Alterra, ruling their policies void to the extent they provided indemnity or coverage for damages arising from the Parish’s own negligence, and also addressed related policy-ranking issues. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling, holding that the policies did not extend coverage for the Parish’s negligence consistent with the contract’s terms and applicable law, while dismissing the consolidated writ on policy ranking.
In this Louisiana case, Alecia Richard petitioned for a temporary restraining order and injunction against Kyle Bourgeois Sr., the father of her nephew, alleging threats, harassment, and unwanted contact during child custody exchanges at a police station. The trial court held a hearing where both parties appeared and, after testimony and evidence, issued a permanent injunction in the form of a Uniform Abuse Prevention Order on June 12, 2019. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal vacated that judgment and remanded the matter. The court reasoned that a permanent injunction cannot be granted in a summary proceeding on a preliminary injunction hearing unless the parties expressly agree to submit the case for final decision, and it also noted an inconsistency between the trial judge’s oral ruling (declining to issue the standard order) and the written judgment that followed.
Eric Brown was convicted in 1996 by a non-unanimous 10-2 jury of second-degree murder and armed robbery for crimes committed in 1994 when he was sixteen years old, receiving concurrent life and thirty-year sentences. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Miller and Montgomery decisions, the trial court held a resentencing hearing that made Brown parole-eligible on the murder count but left the armed-robbery sentence unchanged; Brown appealed that revised sentence. The Fifth Circuit affirmed both the finality of the convictions and the sentences, holding that issues concerning the original convictions are not properly raised in this resentencing appeal because they were or could have been litigated in Brown’s first appeal, which became final in 1997. The court further noted that any favorable ruling in the pending Ramos v. Louisiana case would not automatically entitle Brown to retrial on direct review and declined to address retroactivity questions.
In the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal case Dunwoodie McDuffie, Jr. and Cheryl McDuffie v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Company, Jacob A. Mullins, Heidi King, and Lieren Gros (No. 19-CA-344), the McDuffies challenged an earlier ruling in their lawsuit against an insurer and individuals, which arose from an automobile accident. On January 13, 2020, a three-judge panel reviewed the plaintiffs' application for rehearing of the appellate decision. The court denied rehearing without further explanation, as reflected in the standard order signed by Judges Wicker, Chaisson, and Molaison. This ended the appellate proceedings at that stage.
The case involved claims by the children of Carl J. Calamia, Sr. against the Parish of Jefferson and other defendants for survivorship and wrongful death damages arising from his 2007 death from mesothelioma, which they alleged resulted from his exposure to asbestos pipes while working as a contractor in Jefferson Parish; the suit was filed in 2013, more than six years later. The Parish filed an exception of prescription, arguing that an earlier related lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs against it and joint tortfeasors in Orleans Parish in 2006 did not interrupt the prescriptive period because it was brought in an improper venue and lacked timely service. The trial court granted the exception and dismissed the claims with prejudice, relying on the Orleans Parish pleadings and related documents. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that those Orleans Parish documents had not been formally admitted into evidence at the hearing, so the trial court could not properly rely on them to decide the prescription issue.
In this personal injury case, Dunwoodie McDuffie and his wife Cheryl sued Jacob Mullins and State Farm after McDuffie's truck was rear-ended on I-10 in 2015, alleging that the collision caused new injuries to his right shoulder, neck, and back, along with related damages and a loss of consortium claim for Mrs. McDuffie. Following a bench trial where the parties stipulated damages did not exceed $50,000, the trial court awarded McDuffie $210 in special damages and $5,000 in general damages, finding the accident was a low-impact event that only temporarily aggravated a pre-existing shoulder condition, and dismissed the wife's claim after she failed to appear. On appeal, McDuffie challenged the trial court's assessment of his injuries and the amount of the award. The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the evidence supported the conclusion of only limited, temporary increased pain rather than a new acute injury like a rotator cuff tear.
In this breach of contract case, Yavonka Archaga, a CPA, sued Tonya Johnson, Garron Johnson, and their law firm after preparing their federal and state tax returns for 2007–2015 plus related services such as setting up QuickBooks and negotiating an IRS installment plan, claiming she was owed $30,000 under an oral agreement. The trial court awarded Archaga the full amount, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that a valid oral contract existed, evidenced by the parties’ long friendship, their course of dealing over nineteen months, an email in which Mrs. Johnson expressly agreed compensation was due, and the Johnsons’ later acknowledgment of the $30,000 figure; it found no manifest error in the trial court’s factual findings or in applying equitable principles to support the award.
The case involved Javontae D. Simmons, who was convicted by a jury in Jefferson Parish of second-degree murder, conspiracy to commit second-degree murder, and two counts of attempted second-degree murder stemming from a 2015 shooting in Harvey, Louisiana, in which Stacy Johnson Jr. was killed and two others were fired upon while sitting in a vehicle. Simmons appealed his convictions and sentences, raising a single issue: whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after a seated juror disclosed on the third day of trial that the State’s expert forensic witness had previously taught her a college course. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the juror’s prior connection to the witness would not influence her verdict and the disclosure did not warrant removal or a mistrial.
Thaddeus Johnson appealed his resentencing as a third-felony offender after his original life sentence for two armed robbery convictions was vacated. He had sought relief under State ex rel. Esteen v. State and later legislative changes that reduced the mandatory minimum for his offense from life to a range of 66 to 198 years. The trial court resentenced him to the new minimum of 66 years at hard labor without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The Fifth Circuit affirmed that sentence after appointed counsel filed an Anders brief finding no non-frivolous issues for appeal, and it granted counsel’s motion to withdraw while remanding only to correct an error in the Uniform Commitment Order.
The case involved Kendell Ellis's convictions for second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, stemming from an October 2014 shooting in Marrero, Louisiana, in which Anderson Massey was killed and an eight-year-old girl was wounded during what prosecutors described as a robbery attempt. Ellis appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony. The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding both assignments of error without merit after reviewing the trial record, including witness testimony, ballistic evidence, and surveillance footage. The court also identified a clerical error in the sentencing documents and remanded the case solely for correction of the uniform commitment order and minute entry to match the transcript.
This case involved a plaintiff who sued a town and its employee driver for personal injuries sustained in a 2006 automobile accident, specifically claiming a herniated disc at C4-5 that required surgery along with related pain and work limitations. The trial court found the defendants liable, awarded damages for the injury, loss of earning capacity, and $400,000 in general damages based on medical evidence, the plaintiff's testimony, and expert opinions linking the disc herniation to the crash. On appeal, the Louisiana Third Circuit affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court's findings on causation, damages, and earning capacity were not manifestly erroneous given the supporting testimony from treating physicians and the plaintiff's work history. The court noted the speculative nature of earning capacity awards and the trial judge's discretion in assessing general damages despite some conflicting MRI interpretations.
This case involved a mother's appeal of a trial court judgment granting guardianship of her young son to the maternal grandmother in a child in need of care proceeding initiated by the Office of Community Services. The child had been removed from the mother's custody due to reports of drug abuse, homelessness, and neglect. After multiple review hearings, the trial court determined that the mother had not completed her case plan, failed to maintain stable housing or employment, and tested positive for drugs, while the grandmother provided a suitable home. The appellate court affirmed the guardianship award, finding no manifest error in the trial court's assessment that the placement served the child's best interests and that the mother had not shown a reasonable expectation of reformation.
The case Herring v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. concerned a legal dispute between an individual named Herring and an insurance company. The lower court issued a ruling, which was appealed to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision. Because the opinion was not published, specific details about the underlying facts or legal reasoning are not available in the record.
In State v. Strother, the defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and reckless operation of a vehicle, but pled guilty only to the methamphetamine possession charge after the others were dropped. He was sentenced to the maximum term of five years at hard labor, and he appealed arguing that the sentence was excessive given his personal use of the drugs and older prior convictions. The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit, affirmed the sentence, holding that the trial court had considered the presentence investigation report showing the defendant's multiple prior felony convictions, applied the sentencing guidelines, and did not abuse its discretion because the penalty fell within statutory limits and did not shock the sense of justice.
Vitto sued his former attorney Credeur and others after Credeur forged Vitto's signature on a $55,000 auto accident settlement check without Vitto's knowledge or consent and kept the proceeds. Vitto later added NCMIC, Credeur's professional liability insurer, as a defendant in his malpractice suits, but NCMIC moved for summary judgment on the ground that its claims-made policy provided no coverage because the claim was neither made nor reported during the May 1, 2005 to May 1, 2006 policy period. The trial courts granted summary judgment to NCMIC, and the court of appeal affirmed, ruling that under controlling precedent the policy's reporting requirement defined the bargained-for scope of coverage and did not improperly limit Vitto's rights; the court rejected arguments that the insurer must show prejudice or that equitable doctrines applied.
The case involved the Alexandria Civil Service Commission's reprimand of classified city employee Michael Marcotte for allegedly violating a civil service rule against political activity when he testified under subpoena in a lawsuit challenging a city council candidate's residency by evaluating public utility records at a judge's direction. The trial court reversed the Commission's decision after finding multiple due process violations in the investigation and hearing process, and the court of appeal affirmed that reversal in full. The appellate court held that the Commission denied Marcotte and the City due process by withholding the complaint and investigative report, limiting representation at the investigational interview, and failing to cure those defects at the later hearing. It further concluded that Marcotte had acted in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Director of Utilities rather than engaging in prohibited political activity.
This case involves claims brought by Weldon Vitto, Sr. against National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Company. The trial court issued two judgments granting summary judgment to the insurance company and dismissing Vitto's claims with prejudice. On appeal, the court affirmed those judgments based on the reasoning set out in the companion case Vitto v. Davis. The decision leaves the dismissals in place without further analysis in this opinion.
In this case, plaintiff Claudia Senac sued Rocían Services, the employer of driver Philip Smith, seeking damages for injuries from a car accident after settling with other parties. Rocían moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not vicariously liable because Smith was not acting in the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred while driving a supervisor home after completing an offshore hitch. The trial court granted the motion, and the appellate court affirmed after de novo review, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The court reasoned that under Louisiana Civil Code article 2320, vicarious liability requires the employee's conduct to be strictly within the course and scope of employment in tort cases, and here factors such as the personal nature of the ride, lack of employer benefit or reimbursement, and completion of work duties showed no connection to Rocían's business.
This case involves a former husband's appeal of a trial court judgment partitioning community property following his divorce from his ex-wife. The husband argued that he received no formal notice of the partition trial date or of amended descriptive lists filed by his ex-wife after his attorney withdrew. The appellate court vacated the partition judgment and remanded the matter, reasoning that the record contained no evidence of compliance with statutory and local rules requiring adequate notice to all parties before trial, and that the notice issues had not been litigated below. The court directed an evidentiary hearing on remand to address whether proper notice was given under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1571, local district court rules, and La. R.S. 9:2801.