E. Howard MCCALEB

This case was a petitory action over ownership of a 40-acre tract of land in Louisiana acquired during the marriage of Robert and Shallot Wallace. After their deaths, ex parte succession judgments placed one heir, Lizzie Wallace Odums, in possession despite other living heirs, and she later mortgaged the property; the plaintiff credit company acquired it at a sheriff's sale after foreclosure and sought to claim title via the ten-year prescription in R.S. 9:5682 by using the recognized heir's possession. The defendants, other heirs, contested the application of the statute, arguing the recognized heir was not an ancestor in title and that the third-party purchaser could not tack the possession as required. The Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted the statute's requirements for continuous possession after recordation of the succession judgment and the scope of who qualifies as a third person or ancestor in title under the law.

propertyprocedurefamily law

In State v. Chambers, the defendant was convicted of armed robbery after robbing a food store at gunpoint and was sentenced following a trial that included a lineup identification by the clerk and testimony from witnesses. On appeal, he raised twenty-two bills of exceptions challenging various aspects of the proceedings, including the number of prosecutors permitted, questions during voir dire about the presumption of innocence, the admissibility of the lineup identification, delays in bringing the case to trial, and the scope of the state's rebuttal closing argument. The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed each bill and found no merit in the claims, concluding that the trial court properly applied procedural rules, that the identification was not suggestive, that defense counsel had opened the door to rebuttal comments, and that no prejudicial errors occurred. The court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved landowners who sought an injunction to prevent a contractor, working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and authorized by a levee district, from entering their property to remove soil for levee repairs under a 1934 appropriation of a servitude pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code Article 665 and constitutional provisions. The trial court granted the injunction after finding uncertainty about whether the soil was within the original servitude limits, but the Court of Appeal reversed and dismissed the suit. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on the ground that the dispute had become moot because the soil removal was completed during the pendency of the suspensive appeal, leaving only a borrow pit and eliminating any ongoing harm that an injunction could prevent. The court held that injunctive relief is unavailable to remedy a completed act and noted that the owners could pursue a separate damages claim.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Jackson, the defendant was convicted of heroin possession after police stopped him for suspected stolen vehicle and traffic violations, observed a cellophane-wrapped package protruding from his shirt, seized it, and confirmed it contained heroin. The defendant appealed, arguing the seizure was an illegal search without prior probable cause for arrest and thus the evidence should have been suppressed. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the package was in plain view so its seizure did not constitute a search, the officer's experience and the package's appearance provided probable cause to recognize it as contraband, and exigent circumstances justified the immediate action. The court rejected the claim that the seizure required a preceding lawful arrest.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a truck driver employed by Wolf's Baking Company sued Heebe's Bakery for personal injuries allegedly caused by Heebe's negligence during a delivery, while Wolf's compensation insurer intervened for reimbursement. The trial court granted Heebe summary judgment and dismissed the tort claim, finding a principal-contractor relationship under Louisiana's workers' compensation statute (R.S. 23:1061) that made compensation the plaintiff's exclusive remedy and conferred tort immunity on Heebe; the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed, holding that settled precedent confirms the exclusivity of the compensation remedy against a principal but that the undisputed facts established only a vendor-vendee relationship between Wolf and Heebe, not a principal-contractor arrangement, so Heebe remained subject to suit as a third party.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned property owners bordering Faciane Canal in St. Tammany Parish who sought a preliminary injunction to stop the defendant from obstructing the canal and impeding boat access to Lake Pontchartrain. The trial court granted the injunction, but the Court of Appeal reversed, finding the canal navigable in fact yet holding that plaintiffs' right of passage was a servitude that the servient estate owner could relocate under Civil Code articles 703 and 777 by offering an alternate route. On certiorari, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that the canal qualifies as navigable due to its dimensions, depth, and actual use by pleasure and commercial vessels, and that the defendant could designate a substitute passage without substantial inconvenience to the dominant estate holders, thereby permitting closure of the original segment. The core reasoning centered on applying servitude relocation rules to balance property utilization against navigational access while rejecting arguments that lack of commercial traffic negated navigability.

propertycriminal law