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

This case involved a single-vehicle accident on a Louisiana state highway where a Bronco towing a boat ran off the paved road onto a low shoulder that had not been raised to grade after an overlay five months earlier, causing the vehicle to overturn, kill one passenger, and injure three others. The passengers' families and survivors sued the Department of Highways (along with the driver's insurer) alleging negligence in failing to maintain the shoulder. The trial court found the driver and the Department both negligent and their combined negligence the legal cause of the accident, awarding damages to the plaintiffs while dismissing the driver's own claim; the court of appeal affirmed. The appellate court held that the Department had a duty to correct the hazardous drop-off condition, that the low shoulder contributed to the loss of control, and that plaintiffs' acceptance of the insurer's policy limits did not release the Department or bar full recovery from it as a joint tortfeasor.

torts & liability

The case involved Trudy Daniel, who was injured when her horse reared and fell on her after another rider's horse shied during a trail ride with her employer and his son. She sued the horse owner and his insurers, alleging negligence and strict liability under Louisiana Civil Code articles 2318 and 2321 for damages caused by animals and minors. The trial court found no negligence but imposed strict liability and awarded damages, while the appellate court reversed that ruling, concluding that the experienced rider had assumed the risk, which served as a defense to the owner's presumed fault under Holland v. Buckley. Separately, the court awarded penalties and attorney fees against the insurer for its arbitrary failure to timely pay the $2,500 medical expenses under the policy.

torts & liability

This case arose from disputes following the divorce of Etoyle Yvonne Sandel Ballard and Leon McGraw Ballard over control of Ballard's, Inc., a family-owned corporation, and the amount of permanent alimony. The plaintiff challenged the validity of shareholder and director elections, subsequent board actions including a chattel mortgage, and the defendant's post-divorce issuance of additional shares to himself, while the defendant sought a reduction in alimony to comply with the one-third income limit under Louisiana law. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings that the corporate transactions were valid, the stock issuance complied with prior agreements and did not violate community property rules, and the alimony award was properly calculated based on the defendant's salary plus corporate benefits. The court reasoned that even if the initial director election was flawed, actions by the existing board were valid due to the plaintiff's participation, that pledged shares reverted to the defendant under the stock purchase agreement, and that factual findings on income supported maintaining the alimony amount.

family lawpropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a divorced couple seeking a judicial partition of their community property assets, including shares in a closely held corporation (Ballard's, Inc.), a commercial building, a residence, and household items. The trial court ordered partition by licitation (public sale without minimum bids) for the corporate stock and other assets, finding the stock indivisible in kind due to potential loss in value from equal division. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed as to the stock, holding that it must be partitioned in kind because Louisiana law strongly favors such divisions when feasible under La.C.C.P. Art. 4606 and the evidence of diminished value was insufficient to justify a forced sale; it affirmed the trial court's rulings on the other assets as not susceptible to in-kind division. The court noted that equal stock ownership would allow the parties to exercise remedies under the Business Corporation Law rather than risking unequal bidding outcomes at auction.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In Hegan v. Hegan, the father obtained a divorce from the mother on grounds of adultery and was awarded custody of their seven-year-old daughter, prompting the mother to appeal solely on the custody issue. The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to grant custody to the father. The court reasoned that under the amended Civil Code article 157, custody must be determined based solely on the best interest of the child, without a maternal preference rule, and that the child's established stable environment with the father, including his home and grandmother's assistance, outweighed the mother's claims of recovery from her health issues.

family law

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by the wife and children of a man who died after undergoing a cystoscopic examination under general anesthesia at Allen Sanitarium. The plaintiffs alleged negligence by the urologist, the general practitioner, the nurse-anesthetist, and the hospital in managing an adverse reaction to the anesthetic drug Anectine, failing to timely diagnose and transfer the patient, and violating regulatory standards. Following an adverse jury verdict, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants. The court reasoned that the evidence did not establish any lack of skill or negligence by the medical providers, that the patient's underlying myocarditis was the primary cause of death, and that the hospital complied with applicable laws and regulations.

torts & liability

In this Louisiana interdiction proceeding, the court addressed whether to appoint the interdict's spouse or a bank as curator of her property, following the trial court's decision on its own motion to name the bank. The spouse appealed, arguing for his priority under LSA-C.C.P. Art. 4550, while an alleged grandson supported the bank's appointment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, explaining that Art. 4069 permits appointment of a bank in exceptional cases for good cause shown to protect the interdict's interests, which was demonstrated by the couple's long-term separation, separate financial affairs, and family conflicts. The court also confirmed the grandson's standing as an interested person regardless of blood relation.

family lawprocedureproperty

This case involved a declaratory judgment action over a Gas Sale and Purchase Contract between Olinkraft, Inc. and Franks Petroleum, Inc., which defendant Gerard acquired by assignment for leases in Section 35. Gerard sought cancellation of the contract as to gas from Section 35, a higher gas price of $.57/MCF instead of $.435/MCF, and full payment under the take-or-pay clause based on 2000 MCF daily deliverability for periods when Olinkraft did not take the gas. The dispute centered on whether Gerard met a deadline to spud a well in adjacent Section 36 to qualify for the price increase and on Olinkraft's compliance with take-or-pay obligations. The court affirmed the trial judgment, holding that the Browder well was not spudded by the December 31, 1974 deadline under the contract terms, that Olinkraft properly paid the lower contract price, and that any minor breach of take-or-pay was insufficient to warrant cancellation given substantial compliance and good faith. The reasoning focused on the specific contractual conditions for price amendment, the ordinary meaning and industry practice for spudding, and the limited nature of any payment delay.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a dispute over a foreclosure and sheriff's sale of real property in Shreveport, Louisiana. Plaintiff Ellerd alleged that after defaulting on a mortgage note to defendant Williams, he arranged through appointed counsel to pay the full balance before the sale but was misled by Williams' attorney into believing payment could be sent later without attending, resulting in the property being sold to Williams for the debt amount despite its higher value. The trial court dismissed the suit on an exception of no cause of action, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the petition sufficiently alleged facts amounting to fraud or ill practices that could justify annulling the judicial sale under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2004, as the creditor's conduct deprived the debtor of the opportunity to pay and retain ownership. The court reasoned that such practices, even if not intentional wrongdoing, can support annulment when they hinder free competition or deprive a party of legal rights, drawing analogies from prior cases on judgments and judicial sales.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a pedestrian's claim for personal injuries after an impact with a car backing up near gas pumps at a convenience store. The trial court found that the plaintiff walked into the side of the slowly moving vehicle rather than being struck from behind, determined that the defendant driver was not negligent, and concluded that the plaintiff's own negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, rejecting her damages claim. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, upholding the trial court's factual findings based on an eyewitness account and ruling that the defendant had no duty to maintain constant observation of the plaintiff while backing. The appellate court also held that the Baumgartner principles regarding pedestrian-automobile collisions did not apply because the defendant was not at fault.

torts & liability

The case involved Lehard Moore suing Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for the value of a television set and sewing machine taken from his home without his consent, plus a claim for $810 in hidden cash and attorney's fees under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Law; Goodyear countersued for the unpaid purchase price. The appellate court reversed the trial court in part, holding the repossession wrongful because the sister-in-law had no authority to consent to entry or seizure without judicial process or the owner's permission, and found Goodyear's actions constituted an unfair trade practice. It awarded Moore $225 for the property's value and $250 in general damages plus $500 in attorney's fees, while affirming rejection of the cash claim for lack of credible evidence and Goodyear's countersuit for insufficient proof of the balance owed.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In this case, former employee Edith Steadman and her husband sued her ex-employer, South Central Bell, seeking over $1 million in mental anguish damages, claiming the company's decision to stop disability benefits and its subsequent phone calls and home visit to retrieve identification and key cards caused her severe emotional distress and hospitalization, despite doctors' warnings. The trial court sustained the defendant's peremptory exception of no cause of action and dismissed the suit, a ruling affirmed on appeal. The court held that the petition failed to allege facts showing the defendant intended to cause emotional distress or engaged in outrageous conduct, and that the company's actions to recover its property were privileged as the assertion of legal rights. The parties had stipulated that recovery was sought only for intentional acts, not negligence.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved an electric cooperative's efforts to expropriate servitudes across two groups of landowners' properties in Louisiana for a new 69 KV transmission line, after failing to reach voluntary agreements on price and location. The trial court granted the takings and awarded compensation for the land taken plus severance damages, attorney fees, and expert fees, and the landowners appealed on grounds including premature filing due to inadequate negotiations. The appellate court found that the cooperative had made good-faith efforts to negotiate, set aside later judgments resulting from improper new trial procedures, and amended the awards by reducing severance damages in one suit, lowering expert witness fees, and increasing attorney fees in both while otherwise affirming the grants of servitudes and compensation calculations.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved an inverse condemnation claim by plaintiff Joseph Key against the Louisiana Department of Highways for damages to his residential rental property from flooding and silting caused by highway widening construction on U.S. Highway 167. The trial court found the department's activities, including moving dirt, removing barriers, and altering drainage, increased water flow and silt onto the lower-elevation property, violating natural drainage servitudes, and awarded damages while denying a third-party claim against the contractor. On appeal, the court modified the judgment by reducing the award, eliminating compensation for mental anguish, property depreciation from new drainage structures, and an expert witness fee, as these lacked evidentiary support or were not recoverable in this context. The court affirmed the modified judgment, holding the construction directly caused the harm based on evidence of changed water patterns and silt sources, with no manifest error in rejecting the third-party demand.

propertyprocedure