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

In State v. Daniels, the defendant appealed his conviction for attempted aggravated rape and five-year sentence, raising twelve bills of exceptions primarily challenging the indictment's validity, the bill of particulars, motions related to oral statements, and cross-examination of character witnesses about prior arrests. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the short-form indictment complied with statutory requirements and constitutional standards when supplemented by a bill of particulars, that oral inculpatory statements are not subject to pretrial suppression motions, and that questions about prior arrests were proper on cross-examination of reputation witnesses. The court also found the State's response to the bill of particulars sufficient and rejected claims of duplicity or inadequate notice under procedural rules. Additional issues regarding jury selection and continuances were overruled as either abandoned or without merit under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether the six minor children of Dr. William F. Toler were neglected under Louisiana statutes governing juvenile proceedings, after incidents involving the father's disciplinary actions led a district judge sitting as a juvenile court to remove them from his custody and place them with the state Department of Public Welfare. The trial court issued the order without a formal written petition, relying on its own investigation and testimony that included hearsay and opinion evidence, and the Court of Appeal affirmed by a 2-1 vote. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding that the statute required a formal petition to initiate such proceedings and disagreeing with the lower courts' assessment of the facts supporting a finding of neglect.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a subrogation claim by Federal Insurance Company, as insurer of equipment lessor Brun Sensor Systems, against lessee Pineville Kraft Corporation and its insurer for repair costs after Pineville's employee damaged the leased equipment. Lower courts dismissed the suit under one-year tort prescription, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the action sounded in contract under the lease terms obligating the lessee to reimburse for services and parts needed due to neglect or misuse. The court reasoned that the petition expressly grounded the claim in the contract provisions, with negligence allegations serving only to trigger those contractual duties, so the ten-year prescription period for contract actions applied instead.

proceduretorts & liabilityproperty

The case involved Kenneth N. Cazes's conviction for illegal possession of marijuana, based on evidence seized from his motel room without a warrant. Cazes appealed, raising bills of exception challenging the denial of his motion to suppress the matchbox of marijuana, the admission of that evidence at trial due to alleged lack of probable cause and chain-of-custody issues, and the use of a twelve-man jury under the applicable sentencing law. The court overruled the challenges and affirmed the conviction and sentence. It held that the officer's initial invitation into the room, combined with observation of the marijuana in plain view and other conduct, established probable cause for arrest and seizure. The court further found the chain of custody properly established through testimony and stipulation, and ruled that the twelve-man jury was required because the offense remained punishable at hard labor under the pre-amendment statute.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a painter who was injured while working on the reconstruction of a commercial building owned by defendant American Ventures, Inc., after Hurricane Betsy; the plaintiff sought workers' compensation benefits from the corporation and its insurer, claiming the work was part of the defendant's business. The district court initially awarded total permanent disability benefits, but after remand the Court of Appeal dismissed the suit on the ground that reconstruction was not part of the business of owning and leasing property. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that American Ventures acted as its own general contractor in rebuilding its only asset for rental purposes, making the construction work integral to its trade, business, or occupation under R.S. 23:1061, and thus rendering the corporation liable as principal for compensation even when using subcontractors. The court reinstated the original award of weekly benefits for up to 400 weeks plus medical costs.

labor & employment

In State v. Sliger, defendants were charged under Act 457 of 1970 with possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, and the trial court sustained their motion to quash the bill on constitutional grounds. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague because specific intent is a provable element of the offense that an offender knows, and that prior analogous laws on liquor sales had been upheld. The Court further ruled that the act's title is not broader than its body with respect to marijuana, as the changes in classification, penalties, and the new offense are germane to the subject of regulating controlled substances previously addressed in the same statutory sub-part, and marijuana was already covered in the prior law. The delegation issue was deemed abandoned and inapplicable since marijuana was listed in the act itself. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal law

The case involved Joseph Edward Johnson, who was charged with manslaughter in Louisiana; after a mistrial in his first trial, he was retried, convicted, and sentenced to 21 years at hard labor. On appeal, Johnson raised bills of exceptions challenging the denial of a motion to quash the indictment due to alleged improper selection of the general and petit jury venires, as well as the denial of motions to transcribe testimony from the first trial for use in the second. The court overruled the motion to quash, finding no evidence of discrimination against Negroes in jury selection and noting that the process had systematically included them without exclusion. It also upheld the denial of the transcript motions, determining they were untimely and lacked sufficient justification under the applicable procedural rules for preserving witness testimony. The conviction was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this case, Ree Corporation brought a possessory action against the heirs of Thomas A. Shaffer, alleging that the recording of mineral leases by defendants in 1959 disturbed its possession of an undivided one-half interest in land in Terrebonne Parish, which it and its predecessors had possessed for over thirty years. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering defendants to assert any ownership claims in a petitory action within sixty days, but the Court of Appeal reversed and dismissed the action, finding no disturbance in law since defendants claimed only a one-third interest. The Supreme Court of Louisiana agreed that the amendment regarding defendants' claimed interest should have been allowed but disagreed with the appellate court's basis for dismissal, emphasizing that to maintain a possessory action under the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff must prove corporeal possession or civil possession preceded by corporeal possession by itself or its ancestors in title, rather than mere constructive possession through co-ownership.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns the validity of a Louisiana statutory will containing a particular bequest to a trustee for the maintenance of the testatrix's brother, with any remainder to go to named persons upon his death. The court addressed whether the bequest constituted a prohibited substitution under Civil Code Article 1520, rendering the entire will null, or only invalidating the specific disposition. The Supreme Court held that the prohibited substitution nullified only the invalid bequest itself, leaving the remaining provisions of the will intact, consistent with prior jurisprudence such as Succession of Herber and Succession of Smart. The decision rested on Article 1519, which treats illegal conditions as not written, and the absence of any Code language extending nullity to the whole testament.

propertyfamily law

In State v. Williams, the defendant was charged with possession of heroin and convicted of attempted unlawful possession after police found capsules containing the drug under the seat of a patrol car following his arrest. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting challenges to the denial of a motion to suppress the evidence, the admission of expert testimony on narcotics use, and the sufficiency of the proof. The core reasoning was that the initial arrest for possession of stolen property was supported by probable cause due to the defendant's flight from officers and his suspicious possession of a tagged ring, making the subsequent search and discovery of the drugs valid; the testimony was relevant to establish guilty knowledge, and the chain of custody supported admission of the evidence found in the vehicle.

criminal lawprocedure

In Baker v. Chevron Oil Company, plaintiffs Herbert Baker and Mrs. Gertrude Baker Paynter sought recognition of a one-half mineral servitude reserved in their 1956 sale of land in Lincoln Parish, Louisiana, and cancellation of a mineral lease granted by the purchasers to Chevron, claiming the interest remained outstanding more than ten years later. The district court dismissed the suit on a plea of prescription for non-use, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the servitude had prescribed because no drilling or other operations occurred on the Baker-Hinton tract within the ten-year period, and a voluntary unitization agreement including the tract and adjacent land where production had begun was not fully executed by all parties until after March 29, 1966. The court reasoned that, per precedents like United Oil Company of California v. Touchet, unitization must be completed before prescription accrues to interrupt it, and incomplete or post-prescription filings cannot revive an expired servitude. The court also rejected claims of obstacles to use or implied duties by Chevron, noting plaintiffs had leased their interest and that delays were not attributable to Chevron.

property

In State v. Johnson, the defendant was charged with simple kidnapping, initially pleaded not guilty, then changed to guilty as charged after waiving the reading of the bill of information. Before sentencing, he moved to withdraw the guilty plea, claiming he believed he was pleading to aggravated battery, but the trial court denied the motion and imposed a five-year sentence at hard labor. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that permission to withdraw a guilty plea is within the trial judge's sound discretion under C.Cr.P. Art. 559 and that no abuse occurred here. The court reasoned that the plea was voluntary, the defendant was questioned about its consequences and informed of the penalty, defense counsel confirmed the defendant understood the charge was simple kidnapping, and the request to withdraw arose only after learning probation was not recommended. The opinion notes that the defendant's shifting explanations for the misunderstanding were unpersuasive given the timing and circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a fire at James Leake's gasoline storage and distribution plant in St. Francisville, Louisiana, which destroyed the facility and a delivery truck owned by Prudhomme Truck Tank Service. Leake and his insurer, Hanover Insurance Company, sued Prudhomme and its driver Robert Bertinot for negligence in causing the fire during a gasoline delivery, seeking damages for the plant's destruction; Prudhomme countersued for the value of its truck. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment for the plaintiffs, dismissed their claims, and awarded Prudhomme damages on its reconventional demand against Leake. The court reasoned that the fire originated from gasoline leaking from one of Leake's storage tanks due to his manager's failure to properly secure the valves before leaving the site, allowing vapors to reach the truck's running engine, and that Bertinot was not at fault for the incident.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case concerned William M. Smith's claim for damages from injuries sustained when he was pinned between two vehicles while assisting a stalled car on a highway, seeking recovery under the uninsured motorist coverage of a policy Travelers Insurance Company had issued on the sheriff's emergency vehicle. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and held that Smith was an "insured" under the policy because he qualified as an "occupant" of the sheriff's car, given that he had driven it to the scene, was actively using its battery via jumper cables, and maintained physical contact with it at the time of impact. The court interpreted the policy's somewhat ambiguous language regarding "occupying" an automobile liberally in favor of coverage, consistent with prior decisions, and further ruled that the owner of the stalled vehicle was liable in solido with the at-fault driver for creating a roadway hazard. The decision reinstated the trial court's judgment against Travelers and on its third-party claims.

torts & liability