This case concerned a dispute between a usufructuary (Helena Kennedy) and the naked owner (James Kennedy) over rights to harvest timber from 143 acres of previously uncultivated Louisiana timberland inherited from Walter Kennedy. The usufructuary sought court approval for a plan involving clear-cutting 113 acres and selective cutting on 30 acres, while the naked owner opposed clear-cutting. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal's limitation to selective cutting only and reinstated the trial court's approval of the mixed plan. The core reasoning was that under La. C.C. arts. 560 and 562, the usufructuary must manage as a prudent administrator, and while clear-cutting previously unfarmed lands is generally not permitted, it can qualify as prudent management under specific circumstances like mature timber and market conditions, with proceeds belonging to the usufructuary.
The case concerned the constitutionality of Louisiana Revised Statute 14:42(C), which authorized the death penalty for the aggravated rape of a victim under age twelve. Two defendants charged with raping young girls moved to quash their indictments, arguing that capital punishment for rape was cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment and the state constitution, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Coker v. Georgia. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the statute as constitutional, distinguishing Coker as limited to adult rape victims and finding that the penalty was not excessive given the crime's severity, the state's interest in deterrence, and the narrowing effect of required aggravating circumstances that limited the class of death-eligible offenders.
The case involved Michael E. Walls bringing claims against the State of Louisiana and other defendants. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application without further elaboration. The denial was issued by reference to the precedent in Knapper v. Connick, with one justice noted as not participating in the panel. This disposition addressed whatever underlying issues Walls had raised in the lower courts through the lens of that controlling authority.
This case consists of consolidated lawsuits filed by Jay W. Holt III and Donna B. McCrary against Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. and other defendants, including Alfred W. Hathorn Jr., arising from disputes involving the insurer. The Louisiana Supreme Court issued a brief order denying the writ application that sought further review of the lower court proceedings. Justice Bleich noted that he would have granted the writ, while Justice Johnson did not participate in the panel. The order provided no additional explanation or substantive analysis of the underlying claims.
The case Langley v. Langley was a dispute between John M. Langley, M.D., and Patricia M. Langley that came before the Louisiana Supreme Court on a writ application. The court denied the writ, leaving the lower court's ruling in place without further review. Bleich, J., noted that he would have granted the writ, while Marcus, J., did not participate. The opinion contains no substantive reasoning or discussion of the underlying facts or legal issues.
This case involves Glen Seals, who was indicted and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder for shooting and killing cab driver Ray Feeney during an armed robbery in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. After the guilt phase, the same jury found the aggravating circumstance of murder during an armed robbery and imposed the death penalty. Seals appealed his conviction and sentence to the Louisiana Supreme Court, raising multiple assignments of error concerning trial procedures, evidence, and sentencing. The court reviewed the facts, including witness accounts and the defendant's statements, and affirmed both the conviction and death sentence after finding the penalty proportionate to similar cases.