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

The case concerned plaintiffs' action to remove clouds on title to water bottom property in Plaquemines Parish arising from a 1928 state mineral lease held by the defendants, based on a chain of title tracing back to 1895 and 1910 transfers from the State to a levee district and then to a private company. Defendants sought summary judgment on grounds that the property consisted of beds of navigable waters that could not be alienated under 1910 state statutes and the 1921 Constitution, and that a 1933 tax redemption was invalid following a 1932 tax adjudication to the State. The district court granted the motion, declaring plaintiffs owned none of the property, and the court of appeal affirmed. On certiorari, the Supreme Court examined whether the early transfers were void under laws declaring such property to be state-owned and prohibiting sales by subordinate entities like the levee district, along with the effect of Act 62 of 1912 on curing defects.

propertyproceduretaxes

This case involved a dispute between owners of adjacent plantations in Louisiana over whether a servitude of drain existed allowing water from the plaintiff's Eldorado Plantation to flow through natural crevasse channels across the defendant's Kenmore Plantation. The plaintiff sought judicial recognition of the servitude along with mandatory and prohibitive injunctions to remove obstructions and prevent interference with drainage. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding no such servitude. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the dismissal in favor of the defendant, holding that the evidence did not establish an enforceable servitude under applicable law and addressing procedural limits on considering the defendant's alternative demands for injunctive relief against increased burdens. The court noted the role of local police juries in managing parish drainage needs but focused its decision on the absence of the claimed legal right.

propertyprocedure

In this consolidated case, Whitehall Oil Company sued its lessors under oil, gas, and mineral leases to recover alleged overpayments of gas royalties. The royalties had been calculated using a temporary higher price authorized by the Federal Power Commission, but a later final order set a lower permanent price, obligating the company to refund the difference to its purchasers. The district court dismissed the claims, but the Court of Appeal reversed and ordered reimbursement; the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The court reasoned that the lease was silent on the issue, the payments were made under a conditional authorization that later resolved against the higher rate, and equitable principles required repayment since the defendants suffered no detrimental reliance or prejudice from returning the excess amounts they had received. The defendants' arguments based on voluntary payment rules, mistake provisions in the Civil Code, and equitable estoppel were rejected.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

The case involved defendant Steve Bonfanti, Jr., who was charged with aggravated arson under LRS 14:51 for intentionally setting fire to an unoccupied building at 2302 Highland Road in Baton Rouge; the state specified in its bill of particulars that the only potential endangerment was to responding firefighters, with no other structures or occupants at risk. The trial court sustained the defendant's motion to quash the indictment, and the state appealed. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the quashing, holding that the statute requires the foreseeability of danger to human life at the time the fire is set due to persons already present or in close proximity, based on the legislative history of arson laws from the 19th century through the 1942 Criminal Code and the 1964 amendment. The court reasoned that interpreting the law to include later-arriving firefighters would effectively nullify the separate simple arson statute (LRS 14:52), which covers intentional burning without such endangerment.

criminal law

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by plaintiff Joe Ponthieux, who was injured while working as a laborer cutting houses for relocation; he sued Charles Lowther, who had arranged the project to help his father fulfill a contractual obligation from a property sale. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that Lowther was not liable for benefits under LRS 23:1061. The core reasoning was that Lowther's only business was as a life insurance agent, the house-moving and reconstruction was a single non-business operation undertaken to assist his parents rather than for personal profit or as part of any trade or occupation, and rental of dwellings is not a hazardous activity triggering principal liability for a contractor's employee.

labor & employment

This case involved a plaintiff who sued an automobile insurer directly for personal injuries and property damage after being rear-ended at a stoplight by the insured driver, whose brakes had suddenly failed due to a ruptured brake line. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the court of appeal affirmed, finding no negligence because the defect was latent and undiscoverable despite reasonable maintenance. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review to address whether vehicle owners could be held strictly liable for damages from such defects regardless of fault. It held that the owner was not liable, affirming the lower courts, because state law requires proof of fault for tort recovery absent specific legislative imposition of strict liability, and the Highway Regulatory Act did not create such absolute responsibility for latent brake defects. The court noted that any policy change imposing strict liability would need clearer legislative direction.

torts & liability

Jerry Wells was charged with attempted murder, convicted by a jury of attempted manslaughter, and sentenced to four and a half years at hard labor. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that evidence from searches of the defendant's car and home was improperly admitted. The court reasoned that the initial inspection of the car by opening the hood was an illegal search supporting an invalid arrest, later searches were not incident to arrest and were conducted by different officers without the defendant present, and the search warrant was defective because its affidavit recited only the officer's suspicions rather than facts establishing probable cause as required by state law and U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Evidence of a spent shell found at the crime scene was properly admitted as it was not obtained through the illegal searches.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved multiple criminal proceedings in which appearance bonds were forfeited after defendants failed to appear in court as required. The surety company sought to annul the forfeiture judgments through rules in the criminal cases and a separate civil injunction suit, arguing that the statute required a special hearing with live testimony from process servers to prove service on the defendants and surety. The district court agreed and set aside the forfeitures while enjoining their enforcement, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed those rulings. The court held that the statute permits forfeiture upon the district attorney's motion based on the sheriff's returns showing service, which are prima facie correct under the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the judgments are presumed regular absent contrary evidence from the surety.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Whitfield, the defendant was indicted and convicted by a jury in Orleans Parish for the murder of Percy Thomas, receiving a sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor; he appealed on multiple bills of exceptions, primarily challenging the trial court's handling of a police report during cross-examination of a witness. The report, which defense counsel sought to use for impeachment regarding a witness's prior statement about the defendant's alibi, was inspected by the judge and then admitted into evidence in its entirety over objection, with the jury later reviewing it during deliberations, based on the trial court's reading of State v. Sbisa. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that Sbisa did not authorize the admission of the document for jury inspection in this impeachment context and that the error warranted reversal. Other bills, including those concerning jury selection procedures and evidentiary issues like res gestae statements and chain of custody, were found without merit. The court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a worker struck in the face on the job, resulting in the removal of nine teeth, who sued his employer for workers' compensation benefits after the district court dismissed the suit. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed an award of $35 per week for 100 weeks for impairment of the usefulness of a physical function, holding that the petition's factual allegations were adequate under the statute's liberal procedures to support evidence of the claim and that the teeth had been functional prior to the accident. It reversed the award of penalties and attorneys' fees, reasoning that the employer received no written notice of any compensation claim until the suit was filed (which initially sought total permanent disability benefits to which the plaintiff was not entitled) and that the employee had continued working without lost wages.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Devenow, the defendant was charged with forgery after using stolen credit cards belonging to Preston Chandler to purchase clothing at a department store by signing delivery slips in Chandler's name. He was convicted by a five-person jury and sentenced to seven years in prison, after which he appealed on multiple grounds including an allegedly illegal warrantless arrest, improper admission of hearsay and guilt-related evidence at pretrial hearings on his motions to quash and suppress, and errors in jury instructions. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the arrest was supported by reasonable cause (making hearsay admissible for that purpose), that the evidence was lawfully obtained, that the forgery charge was valid because the defendant signed as a real identifiable person rather than using a merely fictitious name, and that the jury instructions were sufficient.

criminal law

This case was a civil suit for damages from an assault and battery stemming from an altercation at a drug store between plaintiff Frank Tripoli, the assistant manager, and defendant Jack Gurry, a minor customer, along with Gurry's mother and insurer; Aetna, the workers' compensation insurer for Tripoli's employer, intervened to recover payments made. The trial court awarded Tripoli $1,500 in damages and dismissed the intervention, but the Court of Appeal raised the award to $10,000 and recognized Aetna's claim. The Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding that Tripoli became the aggressor by pursuing Gurry out of the store and attempting to restrain him, so no liability attached for the leg fracture from Gurry's initial response, but Gurry used excessive force by striking Tripoli while he was on the ground, supporting the $1,500 award for those injuries, and Aetna could not recover from that award since it related to the non-compensable leg injury.

torts & liability

In State v. Jackson, defendant Tommy Jackson was jointly tried and convicted with Richard Presley of simple burglary of a Louisiana cleaning business; he received a six-year sentence and appealed on three bills of exceptions. The first two bills challenged the admission of testimony that the defendants had been seen at the premises the day before the crime, which the trial court admitted to show familiarity with the location and their association with each other. The third bill challenged denial of a new trial motion based on claims of insufficient evidence of intent to commit theft and newly discovered evidence consisting of the co-defendant's post-trial affidavit naming someone else as his accomplice. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the testimony was relevant, that appellate review is limited to questions of law and cannot reassess the sufficiency of evidence when any evidence supports the verdict, and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the new-trial motion after finding the affidavit unconvincing and noting the defendant had not sought severance or called the co-defendant to testify.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a homeowner suing a contractor for the full cost of removing and replacing a defective swimming pool after cracks, leakage, and structural issues emerged shortly after construction and delivery in 1965. The district court dismissed the suit, but the Court of Appeal awarded the plaintiff $14,000 in damages; on certiorari, the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed only whether the plaintiff had a duty to mitigate damages by spending $1,000–$1,500 on suggested early repairs. The court affirmed the appellate judgment, holding that the plaintiff was not required to undertake the repairs and could recover the full cost of replacement. Its core reasoning was that conflicting expert opinions created uncertainty about whether the repairs would succeed, the defendant had denied any defects and possessed an equal opportunity to perform under the contract's warranty, and a reasonable layperson would not have risked the expenditure under those circumstances.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory