Walter B. Hamlin

This case involved a dispute between the widow of a deceased employee and his employer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, over workers' compensation benefits. The husband died in a 1963 work-related accident at a NASA facility, after which the employer paid benefits until stopping following the widow's $15,000 settlement with third-party tortfeasors that included an indemnity clause regarding potential reimbursement claims. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff, but the Court of Appeal reversed and dismissed the suit; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the third-party compromise affected the employer's reimbursement rights under state law. The court examined La.R.S. 23:1102 and 23:1103, which govern subrogation and provide that compromises with third parties do not bind the employer unless it assents, along with the specific terms of the release that reserved rights against the employer.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved Billy J. Taylor's conviction and death sentence for aggravated kidnapping under Louisiana law. On appeal and rehearing, the defendant challenged multiple aspects of the trial, including the exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment, the questioning of prospective jurors about anticipated evidence of rape and robbery, the denial of a challenge to a juror friendly with the victims, the exclusion of hospital records on the defendant's sanity, the exclusion of women from the jury venire, and the constitutionality of the death penalty. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that many claims were abandoned or moot in light of Furman v. Georgia, that excluded jurors did not serve so no prejudice occurred, and that any error in excluding records caused no substantial harm, resulting in affirmance of the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Edgecombe, the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the convictions of William F. Edgecombe Jr. for aggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping, along with his death sentence, based on separate indictments tried together. The defendant raised numerous bills of exceptions, primarily challenging the trial court's denial of pretrial access to physical evidence, clothing, and scientific test results (including chemical and medical reports) in the state's possession, as well as motions for a new trial, arguing that withholding this information violated his rights to a fair trial and effective counsel. The court held that an accused generally has no right to pretrial inspection of the prosecution's evidence except for a written confession, distinguishing this from cases involving analysis of alleged contraband, and found no evidence of state deception or undue surprise. It affirmed the convictions after examining the record and finding no reversible error in the rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a fatal 1970 nighttime collision in which the plaintiff's son drove into the side of a stopped, unlighted boxcar blocking a street crossing in Alexandria, Louisiana; the plaintiff sued the railroad and two employees for negligence in parking the train without warnings or signals. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on grounds of the driver's contributory negligence as a matter of law under prior precedent, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the record presented genuine issues of material fact about whether the driver could reasonably have seen the obstruction and whether unusual circumstances excused application of the contributory-negligence rule, making summary judgment improper without supporting affidavits or further evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned the validity of a search warrant for defendant Gary Hightower's apartment based on an affidavit from police officers describing a confidential informant's marijuana purchase there on November 30, 1971; the warrant was issued and executed on December 8, 1971, leading to seizure of suspected marijuana and charges of attempted possession. The district court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, concluding that the nine-day delay rendered the information stale and that references to a separate transaction in an adjacent apartment did not establish probable cause. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the affidavit sufficiently demonstrated probable cause for a continuing narcotics operation at the premises and that the delay of nine days was not remote under the circumstances or the ten-day execution limit in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasized that probable cause requires facts showing the contraband was likely still present at the time of the warrant, which the ongoing-association details and investigative context supported here.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Jimmy Michael McCauley's appeal from his conviction for murder and death sentence under Louisiana law, raising twelve bills of exceptions primarily concerning jury selection and the admissibility of his confession. The challenged rulings included the trial court's refusal to permit defense questions during voir dire about prospective jurors' predispositions toward specific sentences such as death versus life imprisonment or manslaughter, as well as disputes over whether the defendant's signed statement was voluntary and properly authenticated. The court examined claims of prejudice from exhausted peremptory challenges and the foundation laid for the confession, applying standards from prior cases like State v. Henry while reviewing the discretion afforded to the trial judge on juror qualification and evidentiary matters.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved twin brothers Donald and Ronald Jones, each charged separately with aggravated rape of the same victim in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, with their trials consolidated; Donald was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, while Ronald was convicted and sentenced to death. The defendants appealed, raising thirteen bills of exceptions, including challenges to the jury selection process and other trial rulings. The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed Bill of Exceptions No. 1, which claimed error in denying a mistrial after the victim sat in the courtroom appearing emotional during jury selection. The court overruled the bill, finding no evidence of any noticeable outburst or demonstration that could have influenced the jurors, and citing precedents that spectator conduct does not require a mistrial unless it necessarily affects the verdict. Other bills concerning jury composition, capital punishment, and related issues were also considered in the opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Earnest Sheppard's conviction for armed robbery under Louisiana law and his sentence of thirty years at hard labor, from which he appealed on multiple bills of exceptions. The primary challenge was to the denial of a motion to suppress his confession, which the defendant claimed was involuntary due to alleged police inducements and promises. The court examined testimony from the suppression hearing, including police officers' accounts that the statement was given freely after repeated Miranda warnings and a signed rights waiver, contrasted with the defendant's contrary claims, and upheld the trial judge's finding of voluntariness as supported by the evidence and entitled to great weight. Other exceptions, such as the denial of a continuance for an out-of-state witness and challenges to jury selection procedures, were rejected for failure to show abuse of discretion or merit. The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Mallie Lewis's conviction under a New Orleans city ordinance (828 M.C.S. Section 49-7) for reviling the police, after the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of Gooding v. Wilson. Lewis challenged the ordinance as unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment, arguing it criminalized protected speech beyond mere fighting words. The Louisiana Supreme Court examined whether the ordinance's prohibition on wantonly cursing or using obscene or opprobrious language toward police officers in the performance of their duties could be upheld, comparing it to the Georgia statute invalidated in Gooding v. Wilson for failing to limit punishment to unprotected expression. The court concluded that the ordinance was not sufficiently narrow and therefore unconstitutional, reversing the convictions.

free speechcriminal law

The case involved Leonard Bell's appeal of his armed robbery conviction and 35-year sentence under Louisiana law. The defendant challenged two trial court rulings: one sustaining the state's objection to defense counsel's voir dire questions on legal principles like the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, and another limiting his opening statement to avoid arguing points of law such as witness credibility. The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the conviction, ruling that Article 786 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the trial judge discretion over voir dire scope to prevent attempts to instruct or commit jurors, and that defense opening statements must be confined to explaining the nature of the defense and anticipated evidence under precedents like State v. Spencer.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns consolidated lawsuits stemming from an October 1968 agreement for the McKnights to purchase a residence from the Fortenberrys for $49,000, with Mrs. Eanes acting as realtor; the buyers took brief occupancy but refused to close the sale, first citing the absence of a required termite certificate and later alleging substantial defects such as a crooked and rotted living room floor. The Fortenberrys sued the McKnights for damages from the failed transaction, while Mrs. Eanes sought her commission from either party; the McKnights reconvened, claiming breach by the sellers, mutual rescission via return of their deposit, or justification due to defects, and sought damages including for mental suffering. The trial court concluded the floor defect was not substantial enough to vitiate consent, as it was repairable for about $1,045 and visible to a prudent buyer, rendering the McKnights liable for breach. The Court of Appeal partially affirmed, amended, and reversed aspects of that ruling before remanding, prompting the Louisiana Supreme Court to grant certiorari to review the judgment under its supervisory jurisdiction.

property

The case was a wrongful death suit by the children of Edward Boudreaux against the liability insurer of Charlie's Steak House, alleging that negligence by the restaurant owner in allowing hazardous conditions, accumulated grease, and fire code violations caused a kitchen fire that spread to Boudreaux's adjacent apartment, resulting in his death by smoke inhalation. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the evidence failed to establish the fire's specific cause. On review, the Louisiana Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to shift the burden or permit an inference of negligence, analyzing conflicting expert testimony, maintenance practices, and whether the facts made the defendant's fault the most plausible explanation for the fire.

torts & liability

The case involved Earnest Francis suing the Lake Charles American Press for defamation after the newspaper published an article incorrectly identifying him as the defendant who had forfeited a $100 bond on a peeping tom charge, when he had only signed as surety for the actual defendant who failed to appear in city court. The trial court awarded Francis $15,000 in damages per the jury verdict, but the Court of Appeal reduced the amount to $1,500. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to review that judgment under its supervisory jurisdiction. The court's reasoning focused on the reporter's testimony about his good-faith but mistaken reading of the bond forfeiture record, the public nature of the court proceedings, and the applicable standards for defamation liability in reports on matters of public concern.

free speechtorts & liabilitycriminal law

In State v. Williams, the defendant was convicted of armed robbery of a convenience store in Baton Rouge and sentenced to ten years in prison; he appealed, arguing that a brown hat and an out-of-court lineup identification should have been suppressed as fruits of an illegal stop and arrest when police detained him while he carried a radiator reported stolen by his father. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that any initial detention was superseded by a valid subsequent arrest at police headquarters under a pre-existing wanted bulletin for the robbery, and that the evidence obtained was not tainted by the earlier action. The court reasoned that the lineup and seizure occurred pursuant to the headquarters arrest rather than by exploitation of the challenged stop, applying the attenuation principles from Wong Sun v. United States and Johnson v. Louisiana. The opinion also addressed the reasonableness of the officers' initial suspicion under Terry v. Ohio standards and Louisiana's stop-and-frisk statute.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Grand Isle Campsites, Inc. suing Richard E. Cheek, a de facto promoter and later director and stockholder, along with his attorney Edward V. Fetzer, to recover an alleged secret profit of $125,000 from a land transaction. Cheek had arranged for the purchase of undeveloped land from Humble Oil through intermediaries for $275,000 and then facilitated its sale to the newly formed corporation for $400,000, while the other principals believed the price reflected an arm's-length deal and that no one would profit until corporate debts were repaid. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants on the breach of fiduciary duty and secret profit claims, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that judgment. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the lower courts' decisions under its supervisory jurisdiction. The core reasoning focused on whether Cheek's actions violated a fiduciary relationship arising from his role in promoting and participating in the corporate venture.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned Taylor Crittle's conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana under LSA-R.S. 40:971(3c), following a jury trial and six-month sentence. The defendant raised bills of exception challenging the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire questioning about the presumption of innocence and the right not to testify, as well as the validity of the bill of information for failing to allege the required elements of knowledge and intent. The court reviewed these claims under the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, state constitution, and federal constitutional standards for indictments, determining that the information was defective because it omitted the specific scienter elements essential to the crime.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned four permanent classified firefighters in Alexandria, Louisiana, who sued to block their mandatory retirement at age 65 under LSA-R.S. 42:691 after receiving notice from the mayor, arguing that the statute conflicted with their constitutional civil service protections. The trial court, sitting en banc, overruled exceptions to jurisdiction and declared the retirement law unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs, issuing a permanent injunction against their separation from service. The court reasoned that Article XIV, Section 15.1 of the Louisiana Constitution grants fire department employees tenure during good behavior, allowing removal only for cause through specified procedures, and that general retirement statutes must yield to these special protections. The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal on issues including jurisdiction, prescription, and the constitutionality of applying the statute to civil service firemen.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned a defendant charged with two counts of possessing controlled dangerous substances (cocaine and LSD) who filed a pre-trial motion seeking permission for his own expert to independently examine and test the substances held by the New Orleans Police Department. The trial court denied the motion, citing prior Louisiana decisions that barred pre-trial inspection of evidence by the accused unless offered at trial. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the ruling, permitted the State to introduce additional evidence on practical considerations, and heard testimony addressing challenges such as non-homogeneous drug samples that could yield inconsistent test results and logistical difficulties in scheduling independent testing during trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a petitory action in which plaintiff J. H. Jenkins Contractors, Inc. sought recognition as owner of a 15-acre tract in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, based on purchases of interests from heirs of the common ancestor in title, Simpson H. Sharp. Defendants Joseph J. Farriel and Mary Victoria Farriel claimed ownership and possession of the land through a 1938 deed for five acres plus over 32 years of open, notorious, and continuous possession, including fencing, pasturing cattle, cutting timber, and maintaining a residence, asserting title by prescription. The trial court recognized plaintiff's ownership of parts of the property, but the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part, setting aside the judgment as to 10 acres and dismissing plaintiff's demand for those acres as of nonsuit, while addressing issues such as deed descriptions, judicial confessions in pleadings, and evidentiary objections regarding prescription claims. The core reasoning centered on whether defendants' long-term possession established prescriptive title superior to plaintiff's chain of title from the heirs and whether allegations in the petition constituted binding admissions.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned the armed robbery convictions of Jordan W. Anderson, Jr. and Clyde W. Anderson under Louisiana law for robbing a Baton Rouge grocery store owner of cash and a customer's check proceeds at gunpoint on March 7, 1970. The defendants appealed their twenty-year hard labor sentences, presenting five bills of exceptions that challenged the admission of a .38 caliber pistol into evidence despite uncertain witness identifications, the trial court's jury instructions on verdicts, and a motion for a new trial supported by an affidavit about the theft of the getaway vehicle. The court examined the facts, including police recovery of the abandoned car and witness descriptions, along with statutory requirements for jury trials in cases punishable by hard labor. It reviewed whether the evidence met identification standards and whether new information warranted retrial under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

criminal lawprocedure