Joe Busbey Hamiter

The case concerns a monetary dispute between Superior Oil Company and Humble Oil and Refining Company (and Chevron) over the allocation of drilling costs for a well under a 1960 joint contract and letter agreement. The lower courts had dismissed the suit on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and prematurity, pending action by the Commissioner of Conservation on cost allocation. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the matter is a straightforward contractual interpretation issue outside the Commissioner's authority, overruled the prematurity pleas, and remanded the case for a trial on the merits to resolve the parties' rights under the agreements.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned Louisiana citizens who filed a state court injunction action to block their parish school board from carrying out a federal-court desegregation plan for public schools. After the U.S. government intervened in the related federal desegregation case, the federal district court removed the state injunction suit to itself under its writ authority and stayed the state proceedings. The relators then sought a writ of mandamus from the Louisiana Supreme Court to force the state district court to hear and decide the injunction case anyway. The court held that, even though the removal did not occur under the ordinary removal statute, the federal court's jurisdictional determination was conclusive and divested the state court of authority to proceed further.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved three defendants charged with armed robbery of Johnny Montgomery; after a jury trial, all were convicted, with Braxton sentenced to 20 years and the others to 10 years at hard labor. On appeal, the defendants challenged the denial of a directed verdict after the state's case and portions of the prosecutor's closing argument regarding defense counsel procurement, a presumption about possession of stolen property, and an alleged comment on the defendants' failure to testify. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that state constitutional provisions bar directed verdicts in criminal cases and that the challenged arguments were either permissible or properly addressed by jury instructions. The court reasoned that the jury alone determines guilt based on the evidence and that the prosecutor's statements did not improperly reference unproven facts or the defendants' silence.

criminal lawprocedure

Evelyn Shirley was charged with performing an abortion in violation of LRS 14:87 by using a French catheter on a pregnant woman named Maydelle Johnson. She was convicted and sentenced to four years in the Louisiana State Penitentiary. On appeal she raised bills of exceptions challenging the constitutionality of the abortion statute, the admission of evidence including a note and papers seized from her office, various trial procedures such as cross-examination limits and jury charges, and the denial of a new trial for alleged newly discovered evidence. The court rejected each claim, holding the statute constitutional, the evidence properly authenticated and relevant, the procedural rulings within the trial judge's discretion, and the new evidence insufficient or irrelevant under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawabortion

The case involved defendant John B. Lawson, who was charged with possession of barbiturates under Louisiana law and moved to suppress a matchbox containing capsules that police retrieved after stopping his vehicle. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, concluding the stop was pretextual, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court found that officers lacked a valid reason for the initial stop, as the claimed traffic violation of failing to yield to an emergency vehicle was not supported by the evidence and appeared to be a pretext for investigation, rendering the seizure of the matchbox inadmissible as the result of an illegal detention. Credibility assessments favored the defendant's account that he had pulled over promptly when signaled, and officers had no other justification such as erratic driving.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a tort suit by Edless Manuel against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company seeking recovery for injuries sustained as a passenger in a company vehicle driven by co-employee William O. Johnson. Liberty had issued both a public liability policy covering the vehicle owned by employer Abdalla’s Furniture and a separate worker’s compensation policy. The district court dismissed the claim against Liberty under an employee-injury exclusion in the liability policy, but the Court of Appeal reversed, finding coverage. On certiorari, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the exclusion applied because Manuel was acting in the course of his employment when injured, as determined by the same standards used for worker’s compensation eligibility, and therefore reinstated the dismissal of the liability claim against the insurer. The court also rejected an alternative argument that Johnson qualified as an executive officer using a non-owned vehicle.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory