Terri Love

This case involved a juvenile, L.A., who was charged by delinquency petition with assault on a school teacher under La. R.S. 14:38.2 after an incident at Sci-Tech Academy where he allegedly pushed through staff and made threats toward a physical education teacher. The Orleans Parish Juvenile Court adjudicated L.A. delinquent, imposed a suspended six-month sentence, and placed him on one year of active probation. On appeal, L.A. argued that the petition failed to provide adequate notice of the specific conduct charged, violating due process, and that the evidence was insufficient. The Court of Appeal held that the petition's reference to the statute and description of an attempted battery or placing the victim in apprehension of a battery gave sufficient notice, and that the victim's testimony about threats, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supported the adjudication under the Jackson standard. The court therefore affirmed the delinquency finding.

criminal lawprocedure

The case State v. Long was a criminal appeal before the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. The court reversed the defendant's conviction and sentence. The decision was issued without a published opinion, providing no further details on the underlying facts or legal analysis.

criminal lawprocedure

Willie Wilson filed a workers' compensation claim against Calamia Construction Company alleging he was injured on the job when a pipe struck him in the neck while working in a hole. The workers' compensation judge granted Calamia's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, reviewed the record and found no proof that Wilson received timely service of the summary judgment hearing date by certified mail, registered mail, or the sheriff as required by law. The court held that the lack of proper notice violated due process requirements under the Louisiana Constitution. It therefore vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Reeves v. Grove, plaintiff Cynthia Reeves sued defendant George Grove after being attacked by his unrestrained dogs while walking her own dog in New Orleans, resulting in injuries to her shoulder, jaw, tooth, and psychological harm; the defendant stipulated to 100% liability, leaving only the amount of damages for trial. A jury awarded Reeves a total of $83,500, broken down into categories such as past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and disability, but nothing for loss of enjoyment of life. Reeves appealed, claiming the award was impermissibly low, that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior litigation proceeds and a surveillance video, and that it improperly denied her request to call a defense witness as an adverse witness during her case-in-chief. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and that the jury's damage assessment had a reasonable basis in the evidence presented, including countervailing proof that justified the amount awarded.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Kerry Becnel, employed by Coastal Catering and assigned to work aboard vessels for Chet Morrison Contractors, who sued after allegedly falling from a barge and sustaining injuries due to missing safety features and inadequate lighting. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to CMC, ruling that Becnel qualified as a Jones Act seaman, that the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act did not apply, and that Coastal was obligated to defend and indemnify CMC while its insurer had improperly denied coverage. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and remanded, finding that conflicting affidavits and witness testimony created genuine issues of material fact about whether Becnel spent a substantial portion of his employment time (around 30 percent) in service of vessels in navigation, which is required under the Chandris test to establish seaman status. This factual dispute prevented resolution of seaman status on summary judgment and also pretermitted review of the related indemnity, insurance, and penalty issues.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved A.M.E. Disaster Recovery Services, Inc., which bid on a City of New Orleans nuisance abatement project and initially received notice of selection for two districts, but was later disqualified as a non-responsible bidder due to prior performance issues. A.M.E. sought injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus to compel the City to award and execute the contract under the Louisiana Public Bid Law, claiming it had submitted the lowest responsive bid. The trial court denied all relief, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the Public Bid Law did not apply to the project, A.M.E. failed to attend the scheduled hearing on its bidder status, and mandamus was unavailable given the City's discretion in non-bid-law matters. The court found no abuse of discretion in the City's actions or the trial court's rulings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case of Thomas-Clay v. Department of Police was an appeal heard by the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. The court issued a decision without a published opinion and affirmed the ruling of the lower court. No additional facts, arguments, or reasoning appear in the available opinion excerpt.

labor & employment

The case involved Jeffrey Pleasant's conviction for second degree battery arising from a domestic dispute in a New Orleans hotel, where he was accused of throwing a pizza plate that struck his wife and caused a bruise. Pleasant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's handling of certain discovery requests regarding a testifying officer's personnel file, and related evidentiary rulings. The court affirmed the conviction and three-year suspended sentence with probation, finding that the record supported the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in its procedural and evidentiary decisions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case arose from a succession dispute after the decedent's death, where the residuary legatees challenged the actions of the executrix (the attorney's wife) and the succession attorney, alleging excessive fees, failure to account for assets like jewelry and co-owned property, and imprudent management that led to foreclosure on estate property. The trial court ordered the attorney to repay $24,500 in excessive fees after reviewing testimony on hours worked and reasonable rates, and dismissed the executrix's reconventional demand for her commission based on her imprudent handling of succession assets. On appeal, the court affirmed, applying the manifest error standard to uphold the trial court's factual findings on fees and fiduciary breaches, and rejecting the claim that the suit was an impermissible collateral attack on prior orders.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

In State v. Collins, defendants Justin Collins and Marion Taylor were jointly indicted and convicted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Jerome Sparkman and each sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension. On appeal, the defendants raised multiple claims, including challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence against Collins, the admission of 911 recordings and firearms evidence, the use of closed-circuit television testimony by a child witness, the denial of a motion to sever the trials, the admission of Collins' statement, and the constitutionality of Louisiana's non-unanimous jury verdict scheme in non-capital cases. The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed both convictions and sentences, holding that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary and procedural rulings, that the evidence was sufficient, that the Confrontation Clause was not implicated, and that the statutory jury scheme was constitutional under existing precedent, with any errors deemed harmless.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court adjudicated C.J. delinquent for criminal trespass and resisting an officer after an incident at O. Perry Walker High School where C.J. attempted to enter a building after being told to leave and struggled with officers. The court imposed a suspended six-month sentence with probation but C.J. appealed the adjudication and the consecutive three-month sentences for each count. The Court of Appeal affirmed the delinquency findings, finding sufficient evidence under the Jackson standard, but remanded for resentencing on the trespass count as excessive and for failure to articulate reasons for consecutive sentences as required by the Children's Code and Code of Criminal Procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a self-storage company seeking insurance recovery for property damage from Hurricane Katrina as well as for lost profits from dozens of future store developments allegedly prevented by the storm. The trial court dismissed most lost-business claims on summary judgment, granted partial relief on the policy's period of recovery, and denied summary judgment on coverage under Lloyd's slips; it also issued an amended judgment after the original. The appellate court held the amended judgment an absolute nullity because it made a substantive change, reversed the dismissal of the lost-opportunity claims due to remaining genuine issues of material fact, affirmed the ruling on the period of recovery, and denied the writ seeking reversal of the Lloyd's coverage denial. The decision rested on procedural rules governing judgments and the existence of factual disputes regarding coverage and causation.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the award of a public works contract for a kitchen warehouse project at the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office. Lemoine/Brasfield & Gorrie Joint Venture, LLC, the lowest numerical bidder, had its bid rejected as non-responsive because it lacked a separate contractor's license distinct from its component companies, leading the Office to award the contract to the second-lowest bidder. The joint venture sued seeking injunctions, mandamus, declaratory relief, and damages, but the trial court denied the requests and dismissed the claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Office acted fairly and legally in disqualifying the bidder. The core reasoning was that forming a limited liability company required it to obtain its own license under state contracting law, regardless of the joint venture label, as the law does not exempt such entities from licensing requirements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation dispute in which Andrea Hunter, after settling claims for a back injury and tuberculosis contracted while employed by Maximum Group Behavioral Health Services, Inc., filed a new claim seeking judicial interest on delayed settlement payments, penalties, attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201(G), and costs. The workers' compensation judge granted summary judgment to Maximum, dismissing Hunter's claims, and denied both her cross-motion and Maximum's sanctions request. On appeal, the court reviewed the matter de novo under summary judgment standards and La. R.S. 23:1201.3(A), concluding that the settlement payments were made in full within the required timeframe without any obligation for judicial interest, so no penalties or fees were due. The court also found the appeal not frivolous and affirmed the judgment in full.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Green, defendant Jackie Green was indicted and convicted on two counts of second-degree murder after a trial in which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on each count. Green appealed, contending that the verdicts were irrational given evidence of sudden passion or heat of blood that would support only manslaughter convictions and that the trial court erred by admitting a recording of his conversation with his mother in an interrogation room. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish Green's specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm prior to entering the victims' house and that the recording was properly admitted because Green had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the interrogation room, which functioned as his temporary jail. The court rejected the privacy claim based on the visible recording equipment, Green's awareness of the camera, his prior Miranda waiver and confession, and precedent treating such spaces as lacking privacy protections.

criminal lawprocedure

In Pearson v. Delaune, plaintiffs Elizabeth and Upton Pearson sued Thomas Delaune, the owner of leased commercial premises, his company, and insurer after Mrs. Pearson slipped and fell on water from a leaking compressor in a walk-in cooler where she worked as manager for the tenant. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on grounds that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the owner's knowledge of the defect. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed, holding that the lease assigned maintenance responsibility to the tenant, Mrs. Pearson had daily exposure to the known condition over years, and there was no evidence the owner knew or should have known of the defect. The court reasoned that if she had notified the owner she already knew of the hazard, and if she had not, the owner had no duty to warn.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved Deneka Vallius filing a petition for protection from abuse against her stepmother Edna Vallius under Louisiana domestic abuse statutes, alleging threats of violence and property damage at Deneka's home where her father resided. The trial court dismissed the petition with prejudice after a hearing, concluding that Deneka had misrepresented facts about her relationship to Edna's children and proceedings in another parish, and ordered Deneka to pay all court costs and $500 in attorneys' fees. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the petition prior to a full hearing on the merits and without record evidence that the petition was frivolous under the statute, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

family lawprocedure

Duckworth Properties sued Clarence and Irma Williams in First City Court for breach of contract related to home restoration work and obtained a default judgment after proper service. The Williamses had previously filed a related suit against Duckworth in Civil District Court seeking damages and removal of a lien, and they petitioned to annul the default judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 2004 on grounds that Duckworth's counsel engaged in ill practices by filing in a different court without notifying opposing counsel or complying with local rules requiring transfer of related cases. The trial court granted the annulment, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the failure to disclose the pending related action deprived the Williamses of legal rights and rendered enforcement of the default unconscionable and inequitable, even without intentional fraud. The court emphasized that actual knowledge of the related suit triggered counsel's duty under the local rule, and service issues in the other suit did not excuse the violation.

procedureproperty

This case involved homeowner Gary Long's lawsuit against his insurer, American Security Insurance Company (ASIC), alleging bad faith under Louisiana statutes (La. R.S. 22:658 and 22:1220) for failing to timely adjust and pay a Hurricane Katrina damage claim on his property. ASIC had initially paid part of the claim, but after Long invoked the policy's appraisal process, the parties' appraisers disagreed, leading to an umpire's ruling; ASIC then paid the remaining policy limits within 30 days. The trial court granted ASIC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the bad faith claims, and the appellate court affirmed after de novo review. The court reasoned that Long failed to produce evidence showing ASIC acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause, as ASIC had complied with the self-invoked appraisal process and there were no genuine issues of material fact.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In State v. Randall, the defendant appealed his adjudication as a third felony offender and the resulting five-year sentence imposed under Louisiana's habitual offender law following his conviction for attempted possession of cocaine. The court reviewed the procedural history, including the denial of a motion to quash the multiple bill, and found no merit in the appellant's assignments of error regarding the adjudication. It affirmed the third offender adjudication but identified an error patent in the sentencing, amending the sentence to remove the prohibition on parole eligibility because the relevant statutes do not authorize barring parole in this context. The court directed the issuance of a corrected commitment order and affirmed the sentence as amended.

criminal lawprocedure