William H. Byrnes

The case involved three brothers who each inherited equal shares of property from their father as co-owners in indivision. Two brothers petitioned for judicial partition by sale of the property at a civil sheriff's sale, along with reimbursement for taxes paid, while the third brother contested the partition and sale on multiple procedural and substantive grounds including improper service, lack of notice of hearings and judgments, mental incompetence of one co-owner, recusal of the trial judge, and low minimum bid. The court denied the relator's requests to proceed in forma pauperis, for a stay order, and to enjoin the sale, affirming the trial court's judgments because judicial partition by licitation is authorized under Louisiana Civil Code articles when co-owners cannot agree on a nonjudicial partition, the relator failed to provide sufficient evidence of indigence or other claims warranting relief, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In State v. Lebreton, the defendant was indicted on multiple counts of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated crime against nature based on separate attacks against three victims in New Orleans. Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted him on all counts, found him competent to proceed after psychiatric evaluations, denied various defense motions including those to suppress evidence and to sever offenses, and imposed six concurrent life sentences plus additional concurrent fifteen-year terms. On appeal, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the evidence was sufficient, procedural requirements including competency hearings and DNA testing were satisfied without prejudice to the defendant, and the sentences complied with statutory guidelines and did not shock the conscience.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over title to several pieces of real property in New Orleans, where plaintiff Beatrice Kaufman alleged that recorded documents purporting to transfer the properties to defendant Frances Cleaton were forgeries. The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, declaring the documents invalid and restoring title based on an affidavit from the purported notary confirming the signatures and recordings were fraudulent. On appeal, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the plaintiff's 1999 bankruptcy petition—listing no real property assets—created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the transfers were intended and genuine despite the forgeries. The court noted that the defendant had acknowledged the notary's signature was forged and that she had recorded the documents, but the bankruptcy filings raised unresolved questions about the plaintiff's own signatures and intent that precluded summary judgment.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Keller, the State appealed the trial court's grant of the defendant's motion to quash a bill of information charging him with possession of marijuana, second offense, after the State had entered a nolle prosequi when denied a continuance and then reinstituted the case two days later. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, reversed the trial court's ruling. The court held that the six-and-a-half-month delay from the original filing to the quash ruling did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Barker v. Wingo factors, as the length of delay was not presumptively prejudicial, the State acted within its statutory authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure to dismiss and reinstitute charges within six months, and the defendant had not asserted his speedy trial right or shown prejudice. The court noted that statutory time limits for bringing a non-capital felony to trial had not been exceeded.

criminal lawprocedure

In Saacks v. Mohawk Carpet Corp., the plaintiff sued her former employer after being terminated from her position as a territorial manager, claiming that her offer letter constituted a fixed-term employment contract guaranteeing her salary through December 2001. The trial court agreed, awarding her past wages, penalty wages, and attorney's fees, and the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed this judgment. The court reasoned that the compensation clause specifying a guaranteed salary through a set date established a limited-duration contract under Louisiana law, rather than an at-will employment arrangement, obligating the employer to pay for the remaining term upon termination without cause. The appellate court found no manifest error in the trial court's factual findings or legal conclusions regarding the contract's nature and the assessment of penalties.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff who filed suit in Louisiana state court seeking damages for injuries from a May 2001 car accident but delayed requesting service of process on the driver, vehicle owner, and insurer until more than 90 days after filing. The defendants raised exceptions for insufficient service and prescription, which the trial court denied. On writ review, the Court of Appeal reversed the denial of the service exception, holding that the plaintiff's reliance on informal negotiations with the insurer's adjuster did not constitute good cause under La. C.C.P. arts. 1201(C) and 1672(C) to excuse the untimely service request, and therefore dismissed the action without prejudice. The court affirmed the denial of the prescription exception, finding no evidence of bad faith that would prevent interruption of prescription under La. R.S. 9:5801. The decision turned on strict application of the statutory service deadlines and the distinction between good cause and bad faith standards.

proceduretorts & liability

Mossy Motors sued Cameras America, LLC and its principals Boyd and Sarah Baker for damages to vehicles and a fence after the defendants allegedly failed to properly monitor a security system as agreed. The trial court entered a default judgment against all defendants totaling over $61,000. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against the individual defendants, holding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence overcoming the presumption of limited liability for LLC officers or agents and establishing any separate duty or agreement with the Bakers personally. The court also rejected arguments that the plaintiff was required to give notice before confirming the default, finding that the defendants had made no appearance of record under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1702. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Gulf Outlet Marina suing boat owner Joseph Spain for $908 in unpaid rent on a boat slip under a 1986 lease, after which the marina obtained an ex parte sequestration order leading to the seizure of Spain's vessel, the Lady of Spain; the boat later sank while in custody, prompting Spain to file reconventional and third-party demands for damages against the marina, its owner, and the sheriff. The trial court awarded the marina the rent plus $1,500 in preservation expenses and dismissed Spain's claims. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Spain owed the rent and that the marina was entitled to reimbursement for bailing the vessel under the doctrine of negotiorum gestio because its actions constituted reasonable voluntary management of another's property to prevent loss, with adequate efforts to notify the owner. The court also addressed but found no reversible error in the trial court's handling of proffered evidence under La. C.C.P. art. 1636.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves Michael Combs, who was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine after selling drugs to an undercover officer. He was adjudicated a third felony offender and initially sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, the court examined whether this sentence was constitutionally excessive, considering factors such as the non-violent nature of his prior offenses (forgery and drug possession), his drug addiction, employment history, and changes in the habitual offender law that would not mandate life imprisonment today. The court concluded that the life sentence was excessive and remanded for resentencing, while affirming a seven-and-a-half-year sentence on the distribution conviction.

criminal law

This case involved a class action lawsuit filed in St. Bernard Parish by plaintiffs against numerous insurance companies for breach of contract, alleging failure to properly adjust property damage claims after a 2000 hail storm. Certain defendant insurers, who had not issued policies to any named plaintiffs, filed exceptions of improper venue, arguing that venue was not proper under Louisiana's general venue rules in La. C.C.P. arts. 42, 76, or 76.1. The trial court overruled the exceptions, finding venue proper under class action rules in La. C.C.P. art. 593(B) or ancillary venue doctrine. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the prior writ decision in the same litigation (Bertucci writ) was the law of the case, which established that general venue rules applied because the petition did not properly include these defendants in the defendant class, and no named plaintiff had policies with them. The court rejected ancillary venue and noted that any post-appeal amendments to the petition were not part of the record.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Karen Bibbins, doing business as Club Xscape, appealing a trial court judgment that upheld the New Orleans Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's revocation of the club's liquor license. The City had petitioned to revoke the permit after incidents on February 10 and May 13, 2001, alleging violations of city code sections prohibiting disturbance of the peace and creation or maintenance of a public nuisance. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the revocation, and dismissed the complaint. It held that the City failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the club or its owner permitted or committed the alleged violations, relying on precedent that a licensee cannot be held accountable for third-party criminal acts in a high-crime area when the owner has taken reasonable security precautions.

business & regulatory

This case involved a divorce action filed by Raymond Washington against his wife Jessie after they had lived apart since 1987, followed by disputes over spousal support, fault, and the partition of their community property including the former matrimonial home. The trial court granted the divorce by default, denied Mrs. Washington's claim for permanent alimony after finding she was not free from fault due to her unprovoked abandonment of the home, and ruled on various reimbursement claims for mortgage payments, separate obligations, and rental value while recognizing the parties' stipulations on asset division. On appeal, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed the fault determination and most reimbursement and rental rulings based on the evidence and application of La. R.S. 9:374(C) and La. C.C. art. 2365, but reversed in part and remanded because the judgment failed to allocate the primary community asset or order an equalizing payment. The core reasoning centered on the sufficiency of proof regarding fault and the statutory rules governing use and reimbursement of co-owned property during separation.

family lawproperty

The case involved defendants Uralle Price and David Honore, who were charged with the second-degree murder of Rickey Thomas after an initial first-degree murder indictment; following multiple sanity hearings for one defendant and a four-day trial, a jury convicted both of second-degree murder, leading to life sentences without parole. On appeal, the defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the reliability of eyewitness identifications by Felicia Varnado, and the trial court's denial of a challenge for cause to a prospective juror acquainted with non-testifying sheriff's office employees. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding the evidence sufficient based on the victim's girlfriend's detailed testimony identifying the masked perpetrators by voice, build, and partial facial recognition, and holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in jury selection because the juror affirmed her ability to evaluate all witnesses impartially and no testifying officers were involved in her acquaintanceships. The court further noted distinctions from prior precedents where police credibility was more central to the prosecution's case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Sister Carol Francis, individually and as administrator of her father's estate, against Lafon Nursing Home and the Sisters of the Holy Family, alleging that her father was mistreated, neglected, and improperly discharged from the nursing home to another facility without required notices or a hearing, in violation of state and federal regulations, leading to claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other damages. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing both defendants. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, reviewed the matter de novo and reversed the February 8, 2002, summary judgment while vacating the February 14, 2002, revised judgment. The court reasoned that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the nursing home's alleged breaches of regulatory duties, such as failing to provide written notice of discharge and appeal rights, were a cause-in-fact of the claimed damages, and that the revised judgment was an absolute nullity due to improper alteration after the original judgment was signed.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs who had sued numerous defendants in Texas for asbestos exposure causing mesothelioma and other illnesses, settling with all but one and losing against that defendant without appeal. They then filed suit in Louisiana against different defendants, including Avondale Industries and various suppliers, for the same exposures occurring at a shipyard and refinery. The trial court dismissed the suit on an exception of no right of action for improperly splitting a cause of action. The appellate court reversed, holding that res judicata did not apply due to lack of identical parties and that the rule against splitting claims under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 425 must yield to the interests of justice given the multi-jurisdictional nature of the defendants and exposures, with no indication of seeking multiple recoveries.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Bentley, the defendant was charged with and convicted by a jury of distribution of cocaine after an undercover buy-bust operation in which officers purchased crack cocaine from him. The trial court denied his motion to suppress, overruled his objection to the prosecutor's closing argument that referenced prior drug dealing, and sentenced him as a third felony offender to the mandatory minimum of twenty years. On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecutor's remarks warranted a mistrial under La.C.Cr.P. art. 770(2) as an improper reference to other crimes and that his sentence was unconstitutionally excessive. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that any improper comment was subject to harmless-error review and did not require mistrial, and that the defendant failed to present evidence showing the statutory minimum sentence was excessive as applied to him.

criminal law

In State v. McDonald, the defendant was charged with possession of crack cocaine under Louisiana law, initially pleaded not guilty, but later entered a guilty plea and received a three-year sentence at hard labor in a rehabilitation program. The appeal centered on the trial court's failure to inform the defendant of the two-year prescriptive period for filing post-conviction relief applications under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, along with some discrepancies in the record regarding motions. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, ruled that the statute's language is merely precatory and does not create an enforceable right for defendants, leading to affirmation of the conviction and sentence. The court also noted that the transcript prevails over minute entries in conflicts and that the facts were limited due to the guilty plea.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hunter, the defendant was convicted in 1983 of armed robbery, adjudicated a second offender under Louisiana law, and sentenced to 99 years at hard labor without parole; that sentence was affirmed on appeal. Decades later, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to reconsider or correct the sentence, finding it excessive, and reduced it to 40 years. The State sought review, arguing procedural bars. The Court of Appeal granted the writ, vacated the reduced sentence, and reinstated the original 99-year term. It reasoned that the sentence was within statutory limits and not illegal, that excessiveness claims had already been rejected on appeal and could not be raised via post-conviction relief, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under La.C.Cr.P. arts. 822 and 881 to modify a sentence long after it became executory and without a timely motion.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Crawford, defendant George Crawford, convicted in 1997 of first-degree murder along with codefendant Larry Lindsey and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise issues including the absence of certain transcripts from the appellate record and limitations on cross-examination of a witness. The trial court denied the application after a hearing, and the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, granted the writ application to review the claims but denied relief. The court reasoned that Crawford failed to demonstrate prejudice from the missing transcripts or any other alleged deficiencies, as his arguments were speculative and he could not show that the omitted materials would have altered the outcome or that counsel's performance fell below constitutional standards.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Joseph H. Pham's appeal of his conviction for possession of 200-400 grams of cocaine and his 25-year sentence under Louisiana law. Police acted on a confidential informant's tip about drug activity at a specific address, conducted surveillance, observed Pham handling a box suspected to contain cocaine, stopped his vehicle, and seized the drugs from his pocket. The trial court denied Pham's motion to suppress the evidence, a jury found him guilty, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the informant's information combined with officers' observations established reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the stop and search, with no errors patent and the sentence within statutory limits.

criminal lawprocedure