Luther F. Cole

This case concerned the timing of finality for a Louisiana court of appeal judgment granting a new trial in a criminal prosecution, which determines when the state's one-year period to retry the defendant begins under La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 582. Defendant Roy Bennett was convicted of solicitation to commit murder; the Third Circuit reversed and ordered a new trial, the State sought rehearing and then a writ from the Louisiana Supreme Court (which was denied), and the State retried him within one year of the writ denial but more than one year after the appellate judgment or rehearing denial. The trial court denied Bennett's motion to quash on prescription grounds, but the court of appeal reversed that ruling; the Supreme Court granted the State's writ and reversed again. The court held that the appellate judgment granting a new trial does not become final until the Supreme Court denies a timely writ application, because La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 922 is silent on that scenario while the parallel civil provision (La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2166) treats the judgment as non-final until then, and the legislature did not intend a different result in criminal cases.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a driver appealing an administrative suspension of her license for suspected DWI under Louisiana law was entitled to a full trial de novo in district court or merely a review of the administrative record. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the statute, LSA-R.S. 32:668(C), mandates a trial de novo. This conclusion was reached through interpretation of the statute's language referencing review "in the same manner and under the same conditions as is provided in R.S. 32:414," along with analysis of legislative history and prior jurisprudence showing that such reviews allow for new evidence and hearings in open court.

procedurecriminal law

In Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co., the plaintiff sought $1 million in uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under an umbrella policy after being injured in a collision with an uninsured driver, but the insurer claimed coverage had been validly rejected. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' grant of summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the signed rejection form was invalid because it did not offer the insured the option to select lower UM limits or inform the insured of that statutory choice. Under La. Rev. Stat. § 22:1406(D)(1)(a), UM coverage must equal the policy's bodily injury liability limits unless the named insured makes a written, informed rejection or selects lower limits, and the insurer bears the burden of proving any such election was effective. The court reasoned that the form failed to place the insured in a position to make a meaningful selection among the three statutory options, rendering the total rejection ineffective and entitling the policy to provide UM coverage. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a derivative action brought by Dr. Charles C. Mary, a member and director of the Lupin Foundation, against other current and former directors alleging they breached fiduciary duties under La. Rev. Stat. 12:226(A) through self-dealing in the 1981 sale of a nonprofit hospital for an allegedly undervalued price as part of a secret arrangement benefiting the defendants personally. The trial and appellate courts sustained an exception of peremption, treating the claims as seeking recovery for an unlawful distribution of corporate assets under La. Rev. Stat. 12:219(C) and 12:226(D) subject to a two-year limit. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the petition stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty governed by the ten-year prescriptive period because the allegations centered on negligent and intentional misrepresentations and self-dealing rather than an unlawful distribution of assets the corporation never received.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned a wrongful death action stemming from a fatal car collision with an 18-wheeler that was blocking the road during a delivery. The plaintiffs settled with the trucking company and its insurer, then pursued claims against a non-motorist joint tortfeasor (Orona) and the decedent's UM insurer (State Farm). The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that a UM insurer may recover in subrogation from a non-motorist joint tortfeasor the sums it paid to its insured, up to the amount of those payments. The court based this on the text of LSA-R.S. 22:1406(D)(4), which grants UM insurers the right to proceeds from judgments against any legally responsible party, and on the statute's purpose of ensuring full victim recovery while holding tortfeasors accountable.

torts & liability

This consolidated case involved wrongful death claims by Eva Miley on behalf of her deceased son and Murphy Keith Wheat on behalf of his deceased wife, arising from a fatal automobile accident, against multiple drivers, their estates, and insurance companies including Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application for review of the lower court's rulings. Justice Cole indicated he would have granted the writ, but the majority provided no further explanation for the denial. The decision leaves the appellate court's judgment in place without substantive review by the high court.

torts & liabilityprocedure