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.
This case involved a workers' compensation claim in which employee David McNease sought production of surveillance videotapes from his employer, Murphy Construction Company, after the employer used the footage to influence his treating physician to release him to return to work. The employer objected to the discovery request, arguing the materials were privileged work product and that it should be allowed to depose McNease first. The administrative judge granted McNease's motion to compel and ordered production of the materials by a set date without requiring a prior deposition. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, holding that the employer's use of the video for a purpose affecting the employee's rights constituted a waiver that generally required disclosure to all parties during pretrial discovery, consistent with the trial court's discretion under prior precedent.
The case of Montgomery v. Lafayette Parish School Board reached the Louisiana Supreme Court on a writ application. The court denied the writ, declining to review the lower court's decision. Justice Bleich indicated he would have granted the writ, while Justice Marcus did not participate in the panel. No further details on the underlying dispute or reasoning are provided in the opinion.
This case involved a personal injury lawsuit by Tammy Bullock against T.L. James & Company, its employee, and insurer after a collision between her car and the company's compacting machine. Bullock amended her petition to stipulate that her cause of action did not exceed $20,000 to avoid a jury trial under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1732(1), and the defendants agreed to the limit. After a bench trial, the court found total damages of $28,288.97, assigned 40% fault to Bullock, and awarded her approximately $16,973 after reduction; the court of appeal then further reduced the award to $12,000 by applying the fault percentage to the $20,000 cap first. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the stipulation limited the maximum recoverable amount to $20,000 before any reduction for comparative fault, as the plaintiff was bound by her procedural choice that deprived the defendants of a jury trial.
This case involved a lawsuit by Ann Summerville and Ned Summerville against Louisiana Nursery Outlet, Inc. and other defendants. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application in the matter. The court's action is noted without any accompanying opinion or detailed reasoning, and one justice did not participate in the panel.
The case involved a lawsuit by Claude Jason Domingue and David Troy Domingue against ABC Corporation in Louisiana state court. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application for a writ of review, leaving the lower court's decision in place. Justice Bleich noted that he would grant the writ, while Justice Lemmon did not participate in the decision.
The case concerned a criminal defendant's challenge to the burden of proof imposed by Louisiana law for establishing incompetency to stand trial. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that La. C.Cr.P. art. 648(A) was unconstitutional to the extent it required proof by clear and convincing evidence, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Cooper v. Oklahoma that such a standard violates due process. The court therefore vacated the trial court's competency ruling and remanded the matter for a new hearing at which the defendant need only show incapacity by a preponderance of the evidence, consistent with prior state precedent. In all other respects, the writ application was denied.
The case of Davis v. Puryear involved a dispute between Robert W. Davis, Jr. and others against David Puryear and others, brought before the Supreme Court of Louisiana under docket number 96-C-1380. The court denied the application for review. One justice indicated they would have granted the application and docketed the case for further consideration, while another justice did not participate in the panel.
This case involved a dispute between Paddison Builders, Inc. and homeowners Debra Britton Turncliff and Edward W. Turncliff. The Supreme Court of Louisiana considered an application for review under docket number 96-C-1675. The court denied the application on October 4, 1996. No additional reasoning or explanation was provided in the opinion.
The case involved a dispute between plaintiffs Ernest M. Carter and Brenda D. Carter and defendants Patterson Insurance Company and Pierre and Associates, Inc., apparently concerning an insurance matter. The plaintiffs sought review by the Supreme Court of Louisiana through a writ application after lower court proceedings. The court denied the writ without elaboration, leaving the prior ruling in place. No detailed facts or legal analysis appear in the court's order.
The case Federal Services Corp. v. Mule-Durel, Inc. reached the Supreme Court of Louisiana as an application for supervisory review or writ. The court issued a one-word ruling of 'Denied,' declining to hear the matter further. Justice Bleich was noted as not participating on the panel. As a result, any lower court decision stands without additional review or explanation from the high court.
This case was a criminal proceeding in which Huey J. Esteen sought review from the Louisiana Supreme Court via a writ application. On September 27, 1996, the court denied the writ without elaboration. Justice Bleich indicated he would have granted the writ, while Justice Watson did not participate in the decision. The opinion provides no details on the underlying charges or legal issues presented.
The case involved Janice Kelley, suing individually and as administrator of the estates of her children Jennifer and Margaret Kelley, against physicians Akio Kitahama and Douglas Haddow along with Meadowcreast Hospital. The underlying dispute appears to center on claims of medical negligence or malpractice. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application for review. No detailed reasoning or facts from the lower courts were provided in the excerpted opinion.
The case involved a criminal prosecution in Louisiana against defendant Solomon Fisher, who apparently sought further review of a lower court ruling by filing a writ application with the state supreme court. The Supreme Court of Louisiana denied the writ on September 20, 1996, leaving the prior decision in place without additional consideration by the high court. Justice Bleich noted that he would have granted the writ, while Justice Johnson did not participate as she was not on the panel. No substantive facts, legal issues, or reasoning from the underlying dispute were addressed in the court's brief order.
The case Lawson v. Straus involved plaintiffs Shelia Lawson, Lisa Prince, and Kimberly Kady bringing claims against Dr. Jeffrey Straus, the Louisiana Eye Center of New Orleans, and related medical entities. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application for review in this matter. The court's decision provided no extended opinion or reasoning, consisting solely of the denial, with Justice Bleich noted as not participating on the panel.