Michael Kirby

The case involves a dispute over the succession of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., between Mary Hotard Becnel as independent executrix and Camilo K. Salas III. The proceeding reached the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal following an initial ruling in the trial court. The appellate court considered an application for rehearing of a prior decision. It denied the rehearing without stating any reasons for the denial.

property

This case concerns a succession proceeding in which defendant Camilo K. Salas III sought a jury trial and a continuance of the August 18, 2025 trial date. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury demand and denied the motion to continue. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal granted the defendant's supervisory writ, reversed both rulings, reinstated the jury request, granted the continuance, and remanded the matter. The court found that the trial judge had twice failed to issue a required written scheduling order under La. C.C.P. art. 1551(B) following conferences, which constituted an abuse of discretion given the need to avoid surprise and ensure orderly case management; additionally, no jury bond order had been issued, so the defendant had no opportunity to comply with bond requirements.

procedurefamily law

The case involves a defendant seeking supervisory review of a trial court's decision, made on its own motion, to reopen discovery in a succession proceeding 18 months after the original deadline had passed. The appellate court denied the writ, finding that trial judges possess broad discretion to regulate pretrial discovery and to modify their own scheduling orders. The panel concluded that the circumstances did not present an extreme case requiring appellate intervention and therefore declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction.

procedure

The case involved defendant Damon Stephney's appeal of his conviction for aggravated burglary under Louisiana law, following a jury trial in Jefferson Parish where he was found guilty as charged. Stephney raised multiple assignments of error, including denial of a continuance, admission of hearsay statements from a co-defendant, insufficient evidence, denial of a motion to reconsider an enhanced sentence, and denial of motions for a new trial (including one based on newly discovered evidence). The Court of Appeal found these claims without merit and affirmed the conviction. However, due to a patent error, it vacated the habitual offender adjudication and the resulting enhanced 45-year sentence, reinstated the original 30-year sentence, and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Eric Maxwell, who was charged with and convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon after a police officer observed him with a handgun during a stop prompted by suspicious behavior near a store. Following a prior reversal and remand by the Louisiana Supreme Court, the trial court conducted a Batson hearing and accepted the state's race-neutral explanations for its peremptory challenges to African-American jurors, finding no equal protection violation. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence after reviewing the Batson ruling and correcting patent sentencing errors regarding mandatory restrictions and a fine under La. R.S. 14:95.1, while overruling prior precedent on responsive verdicts for concealed weapons. The decision rested on the sufficiency of the state's explanations for juror strikes and statutory provisions that automatically corrected some sentencing omissions.

criminal lawcivil rightsgunsprocedure

The case concerns the Louisiana Bar Foundation's appeal of a trial court judgment denying a recommended cy pres distribution of residual settlement funds from a class action arising out of a train car leakage incident. After settlements were paid, the Special Master recommended allocating 10% of the remaining funds to the LBF (along with other distributions), but the trial court refused based on Canon 2B of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Supreme Court's In re: Morvant decision, due to the judge's affiliation with the LBF. The appellate court reversed, holding that the facts are distinguishable from Morvant and In re: Johnson because this involved a valid cy pres distribution of class action residuals rather than a judge improperly imposing fines or advancing personal interests, and rendered judgment awarding the LBF the recommended 10% for Orleans Parish efforts.

procedure

The case involved Roy Parker, who was indicted for the second-degree murder of his wife Veronica Parker and the attempted second-degree murder of Brian Davis after shooting them at a bar in New Orleans in May 2009. Following a three-day trial, a jury convicted Parker on both counts, and the court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder and fifty years at hard labor for the attempted murder, both without parole eligibility. Parker appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motions for new trial and post-verdict judgment of acquittal on grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the evidence, including eyewitness identifications, surveillance footage, and prior domestic incidents, supported the jury's verdicts and that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motions.

criminal law

The case involved homeowners Patrick and Elizabeth Jouve who sued State Farm after Hurricane Katrina damaged their New Orleans property, alleging the insurer underpaid wind-related losses under their homeowners policy and acted in bad faith by failing to timely pay the full amount owed. The trial court excluded the testimony and report of the plaintiffs' expert witness on Daubert grounds, granted summary judgment dismissing the bad faith claims, and limited recovery to actual cash value rather than replacement cost. On appeal, the court affirmed these rulings, concluding the expert was unqualified, no evidence supported penalties or attorney fees under the relevant statutes, and policy terms plus prior flood payments precluded additional dwelling recovery. The denial of a new trial based on purported newly discovered evidence was also upheld.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a juvenile, B.T., adjudicated delinquent in Orleans Parish Juvenile Court for illegal carrying of a weapon as a second offense under La. R.S. 14:95(C), based on officers observing him with a handgun and later recovering it nearby. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, addressed B.T.'s appeal of the denial of his motion to quash the second-offense charge. The court held that the charge was improper because La. R.S. 14:95(C) requires a prior conviction, but juvenile adjudications are not convictions under Louisiana Supreme Court precedent, and it therefore amended the adjudication to the basic offense under La. R.S. 14:95(A) while remanding for resentencing.

criminal lawguns

Plaintiffs VCPORA and FQC, two nonprofit corporations, joined individual residents in suing Old Opera House bar for damages and injunctive relief over alleged violations of state alcoholic beverage laws and New Orleans noise ordinances caused by loud music from its Bourbon Street premises. The trial court granted the bar's exception of no right of action and dismissed the nonprofits' claims with prejudice for lack of standing. On appeal, the court applied Louisiana's real-interest requirement and the three-part Hunt test for associational standing, found that the groups had not alleged present or probable future harm to specific members, affirmed the no-right-of-action ruling, but reversed the with-prejudice dismissal and remanded to permit amendment of the petition.

proceduretorts & liability

Sophie Cull petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the Orleans Parish Jury Commissioners and Jury Administrator under the Louisiana Public Records Act, seeking jury venire lists from January 2009 through June 2010 that included each juror's name, gender, and race. The trial court granted the petition and ordered production of the records (excluding Social Security numbers), and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the Jury Commission is a public body whose records are subject to the Act, that no statutory exemption applied, and that the defendants failed to demonstrate any reasonable expectation of privacy in the requested information that would overcome the constitutional right of public access.

criminal lawprocedure

The case centered on a dispute over an option contract for the purchase of real property from the National Baptist Convention of America (NBCA) and a related joint venture agreement to develop that property through Oakbrook Ventures, LLC, with claims of specific performance, alleged fraudulent transfers, and failures to provide required funding. The trial court denied Oakbrook's exception of no right of action against the original plaintiffs but granted NBCA's cross-exception, ruling that Oakbrook had no right of action because the joint venture agreement was unenforceable. The appellate court reviewed the matter de novo and affirmed the denial of Oakbrook's exception and the granting of NBCA's cross-exception, reasoning that the absence of the promised $1.5 million funding rendered the joint venture a nudum pactum with no consideration, meaning Oakbrook Ventures, LLC never came into existence and its members lacked standing to assert claims regarding the property; all other portions of the trial court judgment were vacated and the case remanded.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved private for-profit limited partnerships that owned and operated low-income housing units developed on land leased from the Housing Authority of New Orleans under the federal Hope VI program to replace former public housing projects. The partnerships challenged the City's 2008 ad valorem tax assessments on the improvements, claiming exemption under Louisiana Constitution Article VII, Section 21(A) based on the original 1949 Cooperation Agreement between the City and HANO that exempted public housing projects from taxation. The trial court upheld the assessments, following the assessor's view that the properties were taxable because they were owned by private entities rather than a public body or a nonprofit using the property for a charitable purpose. The core reasoning centered on ownership by private parties as disqualifying the properties from the claimed constitutional exemption, despite their operation as qualified low-income and public housing units with HUD subsidies.

taxesproperty

In State v. Odoms, the defendant was charged with second-offense marijuana possession under La. R.S. 40:966(E), pled nolo contendere while reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to quash, and was sentenced to one year of probation. The motion to quash argued that the statute is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey and State v. Brown because it enhances the maximum penalty based on a prior adult misdemeanor conviction obtained without a jury trial. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, following the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in State v. Jefferson, which held that the prior conviction exception permits use of such misdemeanor convictions for enhancement when the proceedings included all other applicable constitutional protections and distinguished Brown as limited to juvenile adjudications.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the partition of community property between Michael Richard and his late former wife Maureen Favret following their 2001 divorce and her 2009 death. The Succession of Maureen Favret appealed the trial court's February 2010 and March 2010 judgments, challenging the denial of reimbursement for separate funds allegedly used on community expenses like child support, the denial of a motion to supplement the record with exhibits, the non-acceptance of a CPA's spreadsheet summary, and the classification of a post-divorce business as Mr. Richard's separate property rather than an alter ego of a prior community entity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Succession failed to meet its burden of proof on reimbursement due to lack of properly introduced evidence, that exhibits were never formally offered at trial, and that the trial court's factual findings on property classification were not manifestly erroneous.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case, Jones v. Arias, was an appeal heard by the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. The court issued a decision without a published opinion, affirming the trial court's ruling in part, reversing it in part, and remanding the matter for further proceedings. No additional facts, issues, or reasoning are provided in the excerpted opinion text.

procedure

This consolidated Louisiana appeal concerned whether the trial courts properly granted Rapid-American Corporation's exceptions of lack of personal jurisdiction in three asbestos-exposure personal-injury suits. Plaintiffs alleged Rapid-American was the successor to Philip Carey Manufacturing Company, which had placed asbestos products into commerce that caused harm in Louisiana, and invoked the state's long-arm statute. The court examined Rapid-American's prior agreement, made in an earlier case to secure dismissal of a writ, in which it consented not to contest jurisdiction over any plaintiff who was a Louisiana citizen or had been exposed to Philip Carey asbestos in Louisiana before June 1, 1967; the court held this language created a valid stipulation pour autrui that bound Rapid-American in the present cases as well.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Fernandez, the defendant was charged with armed robbery and second degree kidnapping after participating in an incident where the victim was robbed at gunpoint, bound, and threatened with harm to his family; she was convicted by jury of the responsive verdict of simple robbery and second degree kidnapping as charged. The trial court sentenced her to seven years for simple robbery and, after she pled guilty as a second felony offender, forty years without benefits for the kidnapping, to run concurrently. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences, reasoning that the trial court did not abuse its broad sentencing discretion because the sentences were supported by the record, the violent nature of the crimes, and the defendant's role, and were not grossly disproportionate. The court rejected claims of excessiveness, noting the emphasis on danger to the person even absent extensive physical injury or a long criminal history.

criminal law

This case arose from a dispute among the adult children of Mrs. Dorothy S. Randolph regarding the interdiction of their mother, who suffered from severe Alzheimer’s disease, and a transfer of $100,000 from her Merrill Lynch account to one in her daughter Ann Randolph’s name. The siblings filed petitions for a temporary restraining order and interdiction, leading to consent judgments that temporarily and then permanently interdicted Mrs. Randolph, appointed curators, and froze and later released most of the funds. Ann Randolph sought to appeal the permanent interdiction judgment, arguing the transfer was a valid donation, but the trial court denied the appeal as it involved a consent judgment. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the trial court had never adjudicated the validity of the donation despite prior orders, leaving no issue for review.

family lawprocedureproperty

In Baer v. Cabiran-Baer, the plaintiff sought to nullify a premarital agreement he signed with the defendant before their marriage, claiming fraud, error, and duress, while the defendant sought to enforce its provisions for spousal support and attorney's fees following their divorce. The trial court upheld the validity of the agreement after finding that the parties had a clear meeting of the minds on its unambiguous terms. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the plaintiff, despite having the opportunity to consult independent counsel, failed to prove any vitiation of consent under Louisiana law.

family lawproperty