James E. Bolin

The case involved an inmate, Billy Sinclair, who sued the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections and Assistant District Attorney Aaron Brooks for damages and injunctive relief, claiming they maintained and disseminated false criminal history information about him, including statements made by Brooks at a parole board hearing opposing his release. The district court granted the defendants' peremptory exception of no cause of action, dismissing the suit, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that prosecuting attorneys, including their assistants, are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for actions taken within the scope of their duties as advocates for the state. This immunity extends to appearances at parole hearings, which the court viewed as a continuation of the prosecutorial role from initiation of charges through incarceration and release proceedings. The decision relied on precedents such as Imbler v. Pachtman and Knapper v. Connick establishing that such immunity protects the vigorous performance of prosecutorial functions without fear of subsequent lawsuits.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Cummings, defendant Shelton Cummings was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment after shooting a victim during a drug sale involving fake crack cocaine, where the victim attempted to drive away without paying. The victim was fatally shot at close range through the elbow into the chest. On appeal, the defendant argued insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm and that the evidence supported only manslaughter. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, affirmed the conviction, holding that a rational jury could infer specific intent from the close-range shooting and find no mitigating provocation or heat of passion.

criminal law

This case involves a lawsuit by plaintiff Jean Armand against several defendants, including Joseph Tompley, alleging losses from investments in mutual funds and debentures that turned out to be speculative and resulted in total loss of her funds. After a trial where Tompley appeared pro se and the court awarded damages against him, he appealed arguing error in the denial of a continuance. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded, holding that Tompley was entitled to a continuance because the settlement of claims against his co-defendants on the day of trial constituted newly discovered evidence that he could not have obtained earlier with due diligence, particularly given his self-represented status. The court reasoned that the trial judge must consider the facts of the case, including the movant's diligence, when deciding continuance requests under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 1601 and 1602.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a police captain injured by an accidental gunshot while quail hunting on a Texas lease during an off-duty trip for his furniture-store employer to make repairs and familiarize himself with the property. The trial court denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits, ruling that the injury did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment because he was hunting for personal pleasure. The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the statutory requirements were met under La.R.S. 23:1031: the plaintiff was present due to employment necessities and the activity was at least partly business-related, satisfying both the "course of" and "arising out of" tests. The court therefore awarded permanent total disability benefits at the statutory rate along with medical expenses, but denied penalties and attorney fees.

labor & employment

In this case, Mary Bell was injured when empty soft drink bottles fell from a wire rack on a Pepsi vending machine in the Bestyet Discount Foods grocery store and struck her on the head. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, affirmed the trial court's judgment holding the storeowner (Scrivner, Inc. d/b/a Bestyet) and its insurer liable for $1,884.61 in damages while dismissing the claims against Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company and its partners. The court reasoned that the plaintiff established a premise hazard by circumstantial evidence showing the rack had slipped and was hanging at an angle, that the store had care and control of the machine despite Pepsi's ownership, and that the store failed to show it exercised reasonable care through inspections or other procedures after the burden shifted to it.

torts & liability

This case involves thirty-five landowners in the Fifth Louisiana Levee District suing the Board of Commissioners to challenge the appropriation of their properties for levee construction and improvements along the Mississippi River without full compensation, seeking class action status for injunctive and declaratory relief on constitutional grounds. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana reversed the district court's certification of the suit as a class action. The court reasoned that the potential class members have differing interests and claims, common questions do not predominate over individual ones, and allowing the class action would not promote judicial efficiency or fairness, as separate adjudications would still be needed for compensation disputes.

propertyprocedurecivil rights