James McKay

This case consolidated multiple appeals arising from disputes involving property records, mortgages, and contracts among individuals and entities including Kelly, O'Neil, 3rd Street Properties, LLC, and Affordable Housing Contractors, LLC, with actions against the Orleans Parish Recorder of Mortgages. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, considered challenges to lower court rulings on these matters. The court affirmed the trial court decisions in a decision without published opinion, indicating that the records supported upholding the original outcomes without further elaboration on the facts or law.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Tillman, the defendant was charged with attempted second degree murder, convicted by a jury of aggravated battery, and sentenced as a second felony offender to twelve years at hard labor. On appeal, Tillman argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after a detective testified that he knew Central City people who had been arrested before, which the defense claimed improperly referenced other crimes. The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the detective's vague statement did not constitute an unambiguous reference to another crime by the defendant, that a police officer is not a court official under La.C.Cr.P. art. 770, and that the prosecutor did not solicit the remark. The court further noted that the trial judge offered to admonish the jury but defense counsel declined, and the sentence's omission of parole restrictions was automatically corrected by statute. The appeal also addressed a patent sentencing error that required no remand.

criminal law

The case involved Alton Kennedy, who was charged with armed robbery after using a gun to take money from bartenders at the Gemini Bar in New Orleans. A jury convicted him based on eyewitness identifications, surveillance video, and his own recorded confession; he was initially sentenced to 30 years and later adjudicated a third felony offender and resentenced to 80 years. On appeal, the court examined the trial evidence, rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek recusal of the judge, and identified errors in the sentencing regarding restrictions on parole, probation, and suspension of sentence under state law. The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a promissory note for $193,160.23 plus interest that Sandra Pittman executed in favor of her late father's estate to repay loans he had made to her during his lifetime. After the estate demanded payment and Pittman refused, it sued on the note in civil district court; Pittman raised multiple exceptions and affirmative defenses, but the trial court granted the estate's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Pittman admitted signing the valid demand note, which met all statutory requirements, and that she produced no evidence to defeat summary judgment or support her defenses. The court further found that parol evidence was not admissible to vary the note's terms under the facts presented and that the pleaded affirmative defenses were inapplicable.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Sander, the defendant was charged with possession of cocaine after police stopped him following a suspected hand-to-hand drug transaction in a high-crime area, frisked him, and later opened a folded paper that fell from his tobacco pouch, revealing crack cocaine. He pleaded guilty under State v. Crosby, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that the officer had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop based on the observed transaction and location, and developed probable cause to examine the paper due to its unusual presence in the pouch combined with its rocky contents and the surrounding circumstances. The court found no constitutional violation in the search or seizure, so the evidence was admissible and the plea stood.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs who suffered property damage from a Sewerage and Water Board construction project sought to pursue an oblique action against contractor Drennan and its insurer Gray Insurance after obtaining a prior judgment holding both the Board and Drennan liable. The plaintiffs argued that the Board was insolvent and had failed to pursue its own claims against Drennan and Gray for the Board's share of the damages, allowing the plaintiffs to step into the Board's shoes. The trial court granted the defendants' exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action, dismissing the suit, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that an oblique action under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2044 requires a showing of the debtor's insolvency and failure to exercise a right, neither of which was established here, and that the plaintiffs had already pursued a direct action against the insurer in the earlier litigation.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a legal malpractice claim brought by Kirsten Guy and Brittany Johnson against their former attorneys, Gary S. Brown, Robert T. Weimer, IV, and Gary S. Brown, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that the attorneys negligently failed to file a wrongful death action based on medical malpractice after their father, John Johnson, Jr., died in 2008 from injuries sustained in 2000 at Tulane Medical Center. The trial court granted the defendants' exception of no cause of action and dismissed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that under La. R.S. 9:5628, as interpreted in Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co., any medical malpractice claims had prescribed no later than three years after the 2000 incident, well before the attorneys were retained in 2009, so the attorneys could not be liable for failing to pursue time-barred claims.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In State v. McMillian, the defendant was charged with theft over $500 after entering contracts with homeowners to build a home addition and renovate their Katrina-damaged house, receiving payments totaling $97,860 but completing only minimal, substandard work before ceasing contact and abandoning the projects. Following a bench trial, the district court found him guilty, imposed a sentence of five years at hard labor with two years suspended and two years' probation, and ordered restitution. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant misappropriated the funds through fraudulent conduct with intent to permanently deprive the owners of the money, as shown by the incomplete work, lack of communication, and closure of his business after receiving payment. The ruling relied on the statutory elements of theft under La. R.S. 14:67 and the Jackson v. Virginia standard for sufficiency of the evidence.

criminal law

This case involves an automobile accident in which plaintiffs Lou Ann Deroche and Desiree Guillott were rear-ended by a pickup truck owned by the City of New Orleans, which stipulated liability for the March 25, 1991 collision. Deroche, who had pre-existing spinal injuries, sought damages for aggravated neck, back, and leg pain requiring multiple hospitalizations and treatments, while Guillott claimed soft tissue injuries to her neck and back. The trial court awarded Deroche $265,000 in general damages plus medical expenses and awarded Guillott $10,000 in general damages plus medical expenses and lost wages. The City appealed, arguing the damage awards were excessive under the Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp. standard and that Guillott's claim should have been dismissed for her failure to appear at trial. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the awards were not beyond what a reasonable trier of fact could assess given the medical evidence and finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for involuntary dismissal.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a dispute between maternal grandparents and a father over visitation rights with their minor child after the mother's death in 2005, originating from a Louisiana consent judgment granting the grandparents visitation under La. R.S. 9:344. After the father relocated to North Carolina in 2010 with the child, he filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking a ruling that the Louisiana court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), La. R.S. 13:1801 et seq., while the grandparents pursued a contempt rule and other claims. The court reviewed assignments of error concerning prior judgments, court communications, and contempt, applying UCCJEA provisions on residency and substantial connections to determine ongoing jurisdiction. The majority addressed the issues on appeal and remanded in part, while a dissent concluded that jurisdiction had terminated once the child and parent no longer resided in the state.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Franklin, the defendant was charged with possession of cocaine in 2004, and his case involved multiple delays including a mistrial, Hurricane Katrina, missed court dates, and bond forfeiture before he was arrested again in 2010. The defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information, arguing that the State had failed to bring him to trial within the two-year time limit under La.C.Cr.P. art. 578. The trial court granted the motion, and the State appealed, contending that the defendant's failure to appear provided an interruption under La.C.Cr.P. art. 579 due to actual notice. The appellate court affirmed the ruling, holding that the State did not meet its burden of proving actual notice to the defendant in the record, as required to restart the prescriptive period.

criminal lawprocedure

In Cotton v. Williams, Clarence Williams sued contractor Robert Williams Construction for unsatisfactory home repairs under a 2006 contract and later added Assurance Company of America as a defendant via supplemental petition in 2010, claiming coverage under a builder's risk policy. The trial court granted Assurance's exception of prescription, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the policy had been cancelled by the insured before the contract date, provided no liability coverage, and that the plaintiff was neither a party nor a third-party beneficiary, so any claim had prescribed under the one-year period for immovable property damages. Solidary liability could not interrupt prescription because the insurer was not on the risk during the relevant time and the original suit was already untimely when Assurance was added.

propertyprocedure

This case, Franklin v. Department of Police, was an appeal heard by the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. The court affirmed the decision of the lower tribunal in a ruling issued on April 6, 2011. The opinion was designated as a decision without published opinion, providing no additional details or reasoning for the affirmance.

procedure

This case concerns a filiation action filed by Nicholas Russell to establish that Lawrence Winchester, Jr. was his father for purposes of inheriting from Winchester's estate. Winchester died in September 2008, and Russell, born in December 1985 after a confirmed DNA match, presented the test results to the succession but did not file a separate filiation petition until September 2009. The trial court sustained the succession's exception of prescription, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, ruling that under La. C.C. art. 197 the claim was subject to a one-year peremptive period from the father's death and was likewise time-barred under the predecessor statute that required filing within one year of death or nineteen years of birth, whichever came first. The court found no legal basis for the petition to relate back to the succession proceeding or for Russell to be automatically joined as an heir without taking the required steps.

family lawprocedure

The case George v. Louisiana State Board of Practical Nurse Examiners was an appeal to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, from a decision by the state board that oversees practical nurses. The court issued a decision without a published opinion on February 23, 2011. It affirmed the outcome below. No further details or reasoning appear in the opinion excerpt.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

The case involved T.C., a juvenile charged with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle under La. R.S. 14:68.4 after being stopped while driving a stolen 2001 Chevrolet Malibu with an expired registration. The juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent following a hearing and imposed a suspended six-month commitment with probation. On appeal, T.C. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing lack of knowledge that the vehicle was stolen and that he believed it belonged to his cousin. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the adjudication, holding that the state's evidence—testimony from the arresting officer and the vehicle owner—proved beyond a reasonable doubt that T.C. drove the car without permission, and that the trial court's credibility findings were not manifestly erroneous.

criminal law

The case involved Donald Swanzy, who was charged with four counts of theft of property valued over one thousand dollars related to vehicles used in a demolition project in New Orleans. The jury convicted him of the lesser offense of theft of a 2005 Dodge truck valued between three hundred and five hundred dollars on one count and acquitted him on the others. Swanzy argued that the matter was a civil dispute over unpaid repair bills and that he had acquired legal title to the truck through a mechanic's lien, but the court found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction based on testimony that he took the vehicle without authorization. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, noting that the jury's credibility determination was rational and that the elements of theft were met.

criminal lawproperty

The case involves a workers' compensation claim by Johnny Bell Jr. against his employer Mid City Printers, Inc., following a 2001 work-related car accident that caused neck and back injuries. Bell appealed the Office of Workers' Compensation's denial of benefits for back surgery as not medically necessary, denial of indemnity benefits after his termination, and denial of penalties and attorneys' fees. The employer cross-appealed, seeking forfeiture of benefits under La. R.S. 23:1208 due to alleged false statements by Bell about medication use. The appellate court affirmed the workers' compensation judge on all issues, holding that medical evidence did not establish the necessity of surgery, that benefits and penalties were properly denied, and that the employer failed to prove willful misrepresentations for the purpose of obtaining benefits.

labor & employment

In State v. Materre, the defendant was charged with second-degree murder, armed robbery, and attempted second-degree murder after a shooting at the intersection of Spain and Marais Streets in New Orleans that killed Albert Phillips. The jury returned a responsive verdict of guilty on negligent homicide, and following adjudication as a fourth felony offender the trial court imposed a seventy-five-year sentence under the habitual offender law. The defendant challenged the sentence as excessive, citing the lack of articulated reasons under La.C.Cr.P. 894.1 and the nature of the offense. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the sentence was within the statutory range, presumed constitutional, and justified by the defendant's prior violent felony convictions and conduct showing disregard for the victim.

criminal law

The case involved Woodland Properties, L.L.C. claiming that the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans improperly installed a waterline on its property without permission, based on a prior right-of-way servitude granted to the state. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The court reasoned that the original deed conveyed only a servitude for highway purposes, not full ownership, so the state lacked authority to permit the waterline installation, leaving genuine issues of material fact regarding property ownership that precluded summary judgment.

property