Albert Tate jr

The case involved a lumber supplier suing a general contractor and its surety to recover payment for lumber and nails sold to a defaulting subcontractor, which were used to build temporary wooden forms for pouring concrete in a public university stadium project. The lower courts dismissed the claim, holding that the statutory lien under Louisiana's Public Works Act did not cover these materials because they were not physically incorporated into the completed structure. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, adhering to its prior precedent that excluded items used temporarily and then removed, even if consumed or damaged during construction, and distinguished such materials from those directly consumed like dynamite. The court reasoned that the statute's lien protection applies to materials furnished for the work but requires direct incorporation or consumption into the final public work, and amendments to the act did not alter this limitation.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned Frank D. Mathews's conviction for obtaining hotel accommodations by fraud under La.R.S. 21:21(1) (1968), which criminalized obtaining accommodations without paying with intent to defraud except when credit is given by express agreement; he received a suspended one-year sentence and probation requiring restitution. The defendant was charged solely under subsection (1) but argued in a motion for directed verdict that the state's evidence showed credit had been extended or other conduct not covered by that subsection, and he was not charged with alternative methods of the offense under subsections (2) or (4). The court reviewed the denial of the motion under Louisiana's standard requiring no evidence at all of the crime or its elements, while also referencing federal due-process requirements from Jackson v. Virginia that convictions cannot rest on patently deficient evidence, and noted that proof of an uncharged offense does not support conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Washington, the defendant was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 35 years in prison. He appealed on the ground that the prosecutor had denied him a fair trial by systematically using peremptory challenges to exclude black prospective jurors from service, particularly in cases involving black defendants and white victims. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The court based its decision on testimony from multiple attorneys about the prosecutor's consistent practice over years, combined with the prosecutor's own statements admitting he challenged black jurors based on assumptions about their attitudes, intelligence, and voting tendencies without individual questioning. This evidence established a prima facie case of racial discrimination that the state failed to rebut.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved a negligent homicide charge against a driver following a fatal car accident, where the state sought to use results from a photo-electric intoximeter (PEI) test showing a blood alcohol level above the legal limit. The defendant argued that due process required warning him before the test that the results could create a presumption of criminal negligence, and moved to suppress the evidence. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that no such warning is constitutionally required because the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to physical evidence like blood tests, and the statutory warnings about license suspension suffice. However, the court ruled that any presumption arising from the PEI test results may not be used at trial for negligent homicide to avoid relieving the state of its burden to prove negligence beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Valasquez, a licensed pharmacist was convicted of felony distribution of a controlled dangerous substance after selling pills to an informant pursuant to a forged prescription that the pharmacist knew was invalid. The defendant argued that as a licensee he could only face misdemeanor charges under the regulatory provisions for improper dispensation rather than felony prosecution under the general distribution statutes. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the controlled substances law creates two distinct offenses—one applicable to any person for illegal distribution and another for licensed dispensers—and expressly allows independent proceedings under either. The court reasoned that the district attorney has discretion to elect which violation to prosecute when conduct violates multiple provisions, and prior precedent on penalty disparities did not bar felony charges against licensees. The entrapment claim was rejected because no forgery by state agents was proven.

criminal law

The case involved defendant James Williams, who was convicted of armed robbery in Louisiana and raised a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity based on mental defect and intoxication from alcohol and marijuana. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the conviction due to the trial judge's extensive cross-examination of a defense psychiatrist before the jury regarding the amount of substances the defendant had consumed. The court held that this questioning violated La.C.Cr.P. art. 772, which prohibits judges from commenting on the facts or evidence in the jury's presence, as it implied an opinion on a material issue and undermined the jury's role as sole fact-finder. The decision emphasized that judges must act as impartial umpires rather than actively participating in witness interrogation in criminal jury trials.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a defendant charged with aggravated kidnapping in Louisiana was entitled to bail under the state constitution, which guarantees bail in all non-capital cases. Aggravated kidnapping was legislatively defined as a capital offense unless the victim was liberated unharmed, and here the victim had been raped, leading the trial court to deny bail. The defendant contended the offense was non-capital because the U.S. Supreme Court had held the death penalty unconstitutional for aggravated kidnapping in circumstances like these (Eberheart v. Georgia, following Coker v. Georgia). The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the denial of bail, reasoning that the judicial invalidation of the death penalty rendered the offense non-capital for bail purposes, and that ongoing legislative inaction after multiple sessions could not indefinitely override the constitutional right to bail in such cases.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a prisoner suing the state department of corrections for personal injuries from negligence in 1972 that also caused mental incapacitation preventing awareness of his condition or remedies until 1973; he filed suit in 1974, after the one-year tort prescription period. Lower courts dismissed the suit as time-barred. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that prescription was suspended under the contra non valentem doctrine until the plaintiff recovered awareness because his inability to act resulted from the defendant's conduct. The court reasoned that this civilian principle prevents prescription from running against a party unable to assert rights, especially when the incapacity stems from the opposing party's negligence or fault.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a defendant convicted of theft who faced enhanced sentencing as a fourth-time offender under Louisiana's multiple offender law, based in part on a prior federal guilty plea to possession of stolen mail. The Louisiana Supreme Court considered whether that out-of-state plea could be used for enhancement when the record did not affirmatively show compliance with Boykin v. Alabama requirements for waiving constitutional rights. The court overruled its prior decision in State v. Lewis and held that, in collateral attacks during enhancement proceedings, the defendant bears the burden of proving the plea was not knowing and voluntary. The reasoning relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Timmreck, which indicated that formal defects in guilty pleas do not automatically invalidate them for collateral purposes without a showing of prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with possession of cocaine after narcotics agents conducted a warrantless search at the New Orleans airport and found the drug in his shirt sleeve. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress the evidence, ruling that the initial stop and detention were unlawful. The court reasoned that the agents lacked reasonable suspicion because the defendant's nervous demeanor, hurried ticket purchase in small bills, prior arrest, and actions in the restroom were consistent with innocent behavior and did not provide specific facts indicating criminal activity at the time of the stop.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Allstate Insurance Company filed a timely tort suit against Theriot for damages related to injuries sustained by employee Moore in a 1974 accident, based on Allstate's obligation to pay workers' compensation benefits; Moore later intervened seeking his own personal injury damages from the same incident. The lower courts dismissed the intervention, first because the principal action was dismissed for failing to state a cause of action, and second on grounds of prescription after the one-year tort limitations period had expired. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1039, dismissal of the principal action does not affect an incidental intervention, which must be tried independently. It further ruled that the timely principal petition interrupted prescription in favor of the intervenor Moore because the claims arose from the same conduct and occurrence and involved closely connected parties, even though the original petition ultimately failed to state a cause of action.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case involved John Duff Abercrombie's conviction for the first-degree murder of a Catholic priest, Father Ted Lelieveld, based on circumstantial evidence including a gun, shells, and letters showing anti-Catholic animus, along with testimony about prior similar acts. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and life sentence after rejecting challenges to the admission of other-crimes evidence and the rejection of the insanity defense. The court held that evidence of prior vandalism, assaults, and batteries against Catholic targets was admissible to prove motive and intent, and that the jury could reasonably find the defendant knew right from wrong under the M'Naughten standard despite psychiatric testimony to the contrary.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the theft conviction of defendant Valeria Williams and a co-defendant for stealing pantsuits from a department store, based primarily on identification testimony from two store employees who recognized them upon their return the next day. On appeal, Williams challenged the trial court's overruling of an objection to the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument, which referenced defense counsel's overruled challenge for cause to one of the black jurors during jury selection, made in response to the defense's comments on race and potential mistaken identification. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that although the prosecutor's remarks violated La.C.Cr.P. art. 774 by going beyond the evidence and potentially appealing to juror prejudice, the comments were excusable as a response to the defense's own race-related arguments and did not require reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a security guard who was denied unemployment compensation after quitting his job when transferred to a worksite 48 miles round-trip from home, where the commuting costs became prohibitive relative to his $2.36 hourly wage and his car was unreliable. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and the administrative board's determination that he had left without good cause connected to his employment. The court reasoned that the transfer rendered the employment unsuitable under the unemployment statute, citing precedent that prohibitive transportation expenses can constitute good cause connected with employment, especially absent any initial agreement requiring the employee to handle such distant travel. It remanded for entry of an order granting benefits.

labor & employment

The case involved Morris Scallon, an employee-manager of a discount house, who was convicted of violating Louisiana's Sunday closing law (La.R.S. 51:194(A)) by participating in a sale of merchandise on Sunday. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, determining that Scallon actively aided and abetted the violation as a principal and that the store was open to the general public rather than limited to employees. The court rejected constitutional challenges claiming violations of equal protection, due process, and property rights under the state and federal constitutions, holding that the law was a reasonable statutory restriction and exercise of police power for the health, recreation, and welfare of workers, as supported by prior precedents.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case is a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Louisiana State Bar Association against attorney Roger W. Jordan for alleged professional misconduct. The bar charged Jordan with four specifications, including failing to account to clients for settlement funds received on their behalf and refusing to cooperate with the bar's investigation. The court focused primarily on one instance in which Jordan received $3,000 in settlement proceeds for client Ms. Matlock in 1969, concealed the payment, and retained the money without disclosure despite her repeated inquiries. Based on clear and convincing evidence of these acts, the court ordered Jordan disbarred, holding that conversion of client funds constitutes one of the most serious violations of an attorney's fiduciary duties. Other specifications involving similar failures to account were noted but not necessary to the outcome.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a defendant convicted of forgery who sought to introduce psychiatric evidence to negate the specific intent element of the crime, but had only pleaded not guilty without raising an insanity defense. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that under state law, such evidence is inadmissible unless the defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, as mental defects short of legal insanity cannot negate specific intent. The court rejected due process challenges to this rule, relying on prior precedent, and clarified that a discovery rule requiring notice of mental health evidence does not alter its admissibility.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Touchet, a 19-year-old defendant with no prior convictions pleaded guilty to distributing marijuana for a $1 profit and received a four-year prison sentence. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for re-sentencing. The trial court had not followed La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, which requires stating the considerations and factual basis for the sentence, including factors favoring imprisonment versus probation. Without this individualized analysis, the appellate court could not assess whether the sentence was excessive under the state constitution.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who sued her uncle for personal injuries after he struck her, causing a concussion, hearing loss, lacerations, and aggravation of a pre-existing emotional condition; the trial court awarded her $10,000 in general damages for pain and suffering. The court of appeal reduced the award to $5,000, relying on comparisons to prior awards for similar medical injuries. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the reduction, holding that the intermediate court failed to follow required principles of appellate review under La. Civ.C. art. 1934(3) by not first analyzing whether the trial court's award constituted an abuse of discretion based on the specific facts and circumstances of this plaintiff and incident, rather than using a scale of generic prior awards. Only after finding an abuse may an appellate court adjust the award to the highest or lowest reasonable amount within the trier of fact's discretion.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiff landowners seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent their mineral lessee and sublessees from constructing a gas pipeline across their property and removing gas, based on the claim that the mineral lease had expired due to failure to produce in paying quantities. The trial court denied the injunction, finding no showing of irreparable injury and deferring the lease validity issue to a trial on the merits of the related declaratory judgment action. The court of appeal reversed, granting the injunction under La.C.Civ.P. art. 3663 without requiring proof of irreparable injury. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the landowners, as lessors under the mineral lease, were not entitled to injunctive relief absent irreparable injury and must instead pursue an ordinary action to adjudicate whether the lease had terminated, distinguishing this from cases involving mineral servitudes.

propertyprocedure