District Court, W.D. Louisiana — appointed by Jimmy Carter
United States v. Daigle
District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1995-08-07
In United States v. Daigle, the defendant sought dismissal of federal criminal drug charges on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that a prior administrative forfeiture of $14,000 in currency seized from his residence constituted punishment for the same offense. The court denied the motion to dismiss. Following Fifth Circuit precedent in United States v. Tilley, it applied a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the civil forfeiture served a punitive or remedial purpose. The court concluded the forfeiture was remedial because the amount seized did not exceed the harm caused by the underlying drug trafficking activity, and therefore did not bar the subsequent criminal prosecution.
criminal lawprocedure
Richard v. Reed
District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1995-03-23 · cited 3×
This case concerns a personal injury lawsuit filed by Sheridan Phillip Richard after he was injured on October 5, 1987, when he slipped into a grain bin conveyor system, resulting in the amputation of his leg. The defendants Bluffton Agri-Industrial Corporation and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on the ground that Richard's claims against them had prescribed under Louisiana's one-year statute of limitations before he added them as parties in 1994. The court applied Louisiana Civil Code provisions on prescription and interruption through suit against solidary obligors, along with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) governing relation back of amendments, and found that prior suits against other defendants did not timely interrupt prescription as to Bluffton and Aetna because the relevant amendments occurred after the prescriptive period had already run.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Ranger Insurance v. Exxon Pipeline Co.
District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1990-07-02 · cited 6×
This case arose from a 1987 maritime accident in which a spud barge operated by Broussard Brothers struck and ruptured an unburied Exxon gas pipeline in Bayou Patout, causing an explosion and fire that damaged the barge and tug; the plaintiff insurers, who had paid claims under hull, P&I, and equipment policies, sued Exxon for reimbursement, while Exxon counterclaimed alleging negligence by the barge crew. The court ruled for the plaintiffs on the main demand and rejected the counterclaim, finding Exxon liable and the vessel operators not negligent. The core reasoning was that Exxon breached duties under its Corps of Engineers permit by failing to maintain the pipeline at least two feet below the mud line and by providing inadequate warnings of the crossing and its exposed condition, which proximately caused the allision; the crew had proceeded cautiously after checking overhead lines and the absence of visible warnings, and any vessel negligence was not a proximate cause since the crew could not reasonably foresee an exposed pipeline. The court applied the Pennsylvania rule shifting the burden to Exxon due to the permit violation and found Exxon's inspection practices deficient.
torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
Williamson v. Roppollo
District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1990-05-01 · cited 2×
The case involves three consolidated appeals from bankruptcy court orders in the Chapter 11 case of Carlo P. Roppolo, Jr., concerning the appointment of an examiner with expanded powers to initiate and prosecute adversary proceedings to recover assets, such as preferences or fraudulent conveyances, as well as the examiner's substitution as party-plaintiff. The district court granted leave to appeal but denied relief, affirming the orders. It reasoned that any initial notice deficiencies were cured by a full hearing on reconsideration, that 11 U.S.C. § 1106(b) permits a court to assign an examiner additional duties including asset recovery when the debtor-in-possession will not act, and that substitution was allowable under the rules without violating the examiner's authority. The court also rejected claims that the orders were void or that creditors lacked standing.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Estelle v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1989-10-06 · cited 3×
The case involved Curless Estelle's appeal of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of Social Security disability insurance and SSI benefits, based on claims of epilepsy, vision loss, shoulder pain, and an IQ of 67. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report, denied the Secretary's motion for summary judgment, and ordered benefits granted with an onset date of October 31, 1985. The core reasoning was that Estelle's impairments met or equaled the criteria of Listing § 12.05(C) because his IQ score combined with a significant work-related limitation from vision loss established disability at step 3 of the evaluation process, without regard to vocational factors or past work that the ALJ had improperly considered at that stage; substantial evidence did not support the Secretary's contrary finding.
federal powerhealthcare
Romero v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1989-02-28 · cited 1×
This case involves Luke Romero's appeal of the denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Romero, who has a seventh-grade education, is illiterate, and has a history of labor work, claimed disability since 1985 due to a back injury, mild mental retardation, and organic brain syndrome. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the Secretary's motion for summary judgment and ordering that benefits be granted with an onset date of June 15, 1986. The court found that the administrative law judge erred by not recognizing that Romero's impairments met the criteria under the Listing of Impairments § 12.05(C) for mental retardation, based on IQ scores in the required range plus additional significant work-related limitations from his organic brain disorder, as shown by medical records and testimony. The decision rested on the conclusion that substantial evidence supported a finding of disability under the listing, making remand unnecessary.
healthcare