This case concerned a legal malpractice claim filed by Laurie Jenkins against her attorney Larry Starns after a default judgment was entered against her in a contract dispute and later efforts to annul it failed, leading to garnishment of her bank account. Jenkins sued Starns on November 5, 2008, alleging negligence in failing to file responsive pleadings and appear at hearings, but Starns raised an exception of peremption under La. R.S. 9:5605, arguing the one-year period had expired. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that the continuous representation rule, derived from contra non valentem, cannot suspend the one-year or three-year peremptive periods for legal malpractice claims, as peremption extinguishes the right if not timely exercised and the statute does not allow for such suspension. The court reasoned that Jenkins had notice of potential harm by January 2007 when served with the default judgment, making her November 2008 filing untimely regardless of ongoing representation.
This case involved a challenge to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 496, which permits issuance of an arrest warrant upon filing a bill of information without a prior judicial determination of probable cause. After a district court declared the article unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution, the state appealed. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that article 496 must be read in pari materia with article 202, so that a warrant may not issue unless an accompanying affidavit shows probable cause for arrest. The court addressed mootness arguments arising from the defendant's later court appearances and dismissal of charges but reached the merits due to the public interest and recurring nature of the issue.
This case involves defendants Knight Oil Tools Inc. and associated individuals applying for a writ of certiorari and/or review from a Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal decision that originated in the 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application. Chief Justice Kimball indicated that she would have granted the writ, and Justice Knoll was recused from consideration of the matter.
In State v. Dorsey, Felton Dejuan Dorsey was indicted and tried for the first-degree murder of Joe Prock during a 2006 home invasion in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, with the state seeking the death penalty based on aggravating factors such as armed robbery and risk to multiple persons. After jury selection that included a Batson challenge by the defense over the state's peremptory strikes of black prospective jurors, the trial proceeded with the state presenting extensive evidence; the jury convicted Dorsey of first-degree murder and recommended death, which the district court imposed. On direct appeal under the Louisiana Constitution, Dorsey raised twenty-six assignments of error, primarily concerning jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and penalty-phase procedures, but the Supreme Court reviewed the record and concluded that none constituted reversible error, thereby affirming the conviction and death sentence.
This case concerned whether a state-employed seaman injured while working on a Louisiana vessel could pursue a damages claim against the state under the federal Jones Act in state court, or whether such claims were limited to the state workers' compensation system. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal's decision allowing the Jones Act suit to proceed. The court reasoned that the state constitution waives sovereign immunity for personal injury suits and that the legislature has not restricted this waiver with respect to Jones Act claims by state employees, while also noting that the workers' compensation statute itself excludes coverage for employees with Jones Act remedies.
In this dispute over alleged defects in a newly constructed home, homeowners sued the general contractor Venus Construction in 2003 for foundation issues, and Venus filed a 2006 third-party indemnity demand against subcontractor Post-Tension Slabs. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the demand was perempted under La. R.S. 9:2772, reversing the court of appeal and reinstating the trial court's grant of the exception. The court determined that the peremptive period began with the 1997 certificate of occupancy, the five-year period from the 2003 amendment applied to the claim, and Venus's indemnity right had not vested prior to the statutory changes that shortened the period from ten to five years.
This case involves the succession of Willie Willard Seal, concerning the distribution of his estate under Louisiana law. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application before it without elaboration. Chief Justice Kimball and Justice Guidry indicated they would have granted the application instead. No additional facts, legal analysis, or holdings on the merits appear in the decision.
This case involved a dispute over a convenience store owner's application for an alcohol sales permit in Washington Parish after a 1976 local-option election had made its ward "dry," despite the ward later being merged into a new council district that included a previously "wet" area. The trial court held that a 2009 amendment to La. R.S. 26:583(C)(2), which exempted parishes with populations between 40,000 and 45,000 from rules requiring merged districts to adopt the sales characteristics of the new district, was unconstitutional as a local or special law regulating trade and as a violation of equal protection. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the amendment was neither a local nor special law because it applied to multiple dissimilar parishes based on changeable population data with the potential to cover additional parishes, and it did not violate equal protection because the classification targeted parishes rather than individuals.
In State v. Coleman, the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed a defendant's request for representation by the Orleans Public Defender and a contempt ruling against him for failing to hire counsel after posting a $15,000 bond. The court granted the writ in part by ordering the defendant's immediate release from custody on the existing bond and reversing the commissioner's contempt ruling. It denied the request for public defender representation, finding that the defendant had failed to show he was indigent and thus must proceed without counsel unless he hires one. The court determined that the failure to hire counsel under these circumstances does not constitute contempt.
This case arose from a workers' compensation dispute involving treatment provided by Lafayette Bone & Joint Clinic to claimant Connie Doyle in connection with her employment at Albertsons, with LWCDC as the relevant compensation entity. The matter reached the Louisiana Supreme Court on a writ application. The court denied the writ, with Chief Justice Kimball recused and Justice Clark indicating he would grant the application. No additional reasoning or analysis appears in the opinion.
The case involved interstate natural gas pipeline companies challenging Louisiana's ad valorem tax classifications under La. R.S. 47:1851(K) and (M), which subjected them to a 25% assessment rate as public service property while non-rate-regulated intrastate companies faced only 15% as other property, claiming a violation of the U.S. Commerce Clause. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' findings of unconstitutionality. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the scheme actually discriminated against or burdened interstate commerce, as there was insufficient evidence showing the interstate companies paid higher taxes than their intrastate competitors.
The case State ex rel. J.M. involved a proceeding in which the State of Louisiana acted in the interest of a minor, J.M., and reached the Louisiana Supreme Court via an application for review. The court issued a denial of that application. Chief Justice Kimball and Justice Johnson separately noted that they would have granted the application. As a result, the ruling from the lower court remained in effect without further review by the state's highest court.
This case, Dalme v. Dalme, arose from a family dispute filed in Louisiana state court under docket number 2009-CJ-2560. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application seeking review of a lower court ruling. Chief Justice Kimball and Justice Johnson dissented from the denial, indicating they would have granted the writ to consider the matter further.
The case State v. Coupe involved a criminal prosecution in Louisiana. The Louisiana Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order denying an application, with no further explanation provided in the opinion. Three justices dissented from the denial, stating they would have granted the application. The court offered no reasoning or analysis for its decision to deny relief.
The case State v. Romero was a criminal proceeding in Louisiana state court. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application in the matter. Three justices dissented from the denial, indicating they would have granted review.
The case State v. Altamirano was a criminal prosecution brought by the State of Louisiana against defendant Julio Altamirano. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application in the matter. Chief Justice Kimball, Justice Johnson, and Justice Weimer each indicated they would have granted the writ.
The case State v. Ramos was a criminal prosecution in Louisiana. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the defendant's application for review in a brief order. Three justices separately indicated they would have granted the application.
The case State v. Reyes involved a criminal prosecution in Louisiana against defendant Gabriel Dominguez Reyes. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the defendant's writ application seeking review of a lower court decision. Three justices dissented from the denial and indicated they would have granted the writ. No further reasoning or facts about the underlying charges appear in the opinion.
This case involves a criminal prosecution in Louisiana in which the defendants filed a motion to recuse the trial judge. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeal reversed that denial, but the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the state's writ application, vacated the appellate decision, and reinstated the district court's order denying recusal.
This case involves a criminal defendant, Darrin Robinson, who asserted his right to self-representation during trial in Louisiana state court. On review, the defendant argued that the trial court failed to confirm his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent, as mandated by constitutional standards. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the writ application in part and remanded the case to the court of appeal. The court instructed the appellate court to specifically address this assignment of error, referencing Faretta v. California and State v. LaFleur, which require trial judges to assess a defendant's literacy, competency, understanding, and volition before accepting such a waiver. Three justices indicated they would deny the application outright.