In Lugo v. Park Management, plaintiff Linda Lugo brought suit against Park Management d/b/a Sun Suites and Crestwood and its insurer James River Insurance Company. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application in case number 2009-CC-0780. Justice Traylor indicated he would have granted the writ.
This case involves Antoinette Frank, a death row inmate, who sought an extension of time to file a supplemental application for post-conviction relief after her initial "shell" application was denied by the trial court, which had also set an execution date. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the motion, extending the deadline for filing the supplemental application until July 1, 2009, without further extensions, and vacated the pending execution warrant while staying lower court proceedings. The court's decision followed its prior order that had already provided additional time for the filing, emphasizing the need to allow the relator to prepare and submit specific claims under state post-conviction procedures. Dissenting justices argued that further delays were unwarranted and that counsel should focus on reviewing the existing record rather than conducting a full reinvestigation.
The case of Lemly v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital District No. 1 reached the Louisiana Supreme Court as writ application number 2009-CC-0709. The underlying dispute involved a claim by Toni S. Lemly against the hospital district. On May 15, 2009, the court issued a one-word order denying the application. Justice Traylor noted that he would have granted the writ.
The case concerned disputes between the City of Baton Rouge/East Baton Rouge Parish and Capital City Press, L.L.C. (publisher of The Advocate newspaper) along with reporter Kimberly Vetter, involving the East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan Council and Baton Rouge Police Department. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application seeking review of the lower court proceedings. Justice Traylor indicated he would have granted the writ.
The case involves Jason Reeves, who was indicted for the first-degree murder of a four-year-old girl, M.J.T., in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, in November 2001; after a mistrial, a jury convicted him at retrial, finding aggravating circumstances of aggravated rape, the victim's age under twelve, and the especially heinous manner of the offense, and recommended a death sentence which the trial court imposed. On direct appeal under the Louisiana Constitution, Reeves raised multiple challenges to his conviction and sentence. The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the record and legal arguments, determined that none constituted reversible error, and affirmed the conviction and death sentence.
The case State v. Hasten was a criminal prosecution brought by the State of Louisiana against defendant Jarvis Hasten. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted reconsideration of a writ application filed in the matter but ultimately denied the writ. Justice Traylor dissented, stating he would have granted the writ. No substantive facts, legal issues, or reasoning from the lower courts were addressed in the court's disposition.
The case State v. Gillin was a criminal prosecution in Louisiana state court. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application before it on April 17, 2009. No reasoning was provided in the denial. Justices Traylor and Knoll noted that they would have granted the writ.
The case concerned a dispute between Spine Diagnostics Center of Baton Rouge, Inc. and the Louisiana State Board of Nursing through the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, along with August J. Rantz, III. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application for a writ of certiorari or review from the lower court's decision. Two justices dissented from the denial and indicated they would have granted the writ. The court's order provided no further explanation or analysis of the underlying issues.
This case involved the Louisiana Environmental Action Network challenging an action by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. The Louisiana Supreme Court issued an order denying the application for review. Justice Traylor indicated that he would have granted the application. The court's brief order provided no additional reasoning or explanation for the denial.
The case concerned Peggie Hunter's personal injury claim against Morton's Seafood Restaurant after she fell on the premises in March 2006; she filed her petition by facsimile on March 8, 2007, the last day before the one-year prescriptive period expired, but the clerk received the original signed documents and fees by mail on March 16, 2007. The trial court sustained the defendants' exception of prescription and dismissed the suit because the originals arrived outside the five-legal-day window under La. R.S. 13:850. The court of appeal reversed, interpreting the statute to require only that the originals be sent within five days. On review, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that "forward" in the facsimile filing statute means "to send," not "to deliver or receive," and remanded the matter to the trial court for Hunter to prove timely mailing.
The case Dore Energy Corporation v. Carter-Langham, Inc. involved a dispute between the two companies and reached the Supreme Court of Louisiana under case number 2007-CC-1775. The court issued a brief order denying the matter on March 13, 2009. One justice was recused, and another indicated they would have granted the requested relief. No further facts or legal reasoning appear in the provided opinion excerpt.
In State v. Ramirez, a criminal prosecution in Louisiana, the defendant sought review by the state supreme court through a writ application. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ without elaboration or a full opinion. Justices Traylor, Knoll, and Guidry each noted that they would have granted the writ to consider the issues presented.
This case, Self v. Fleming Construction Company, et al., reached the Supreme Court of Louisiana on a writ application filed by the plaintiffs. The court issued a decision denying the writ. Two justices, Traylor and Guidry, noted that they would have granted the writ to review the matter further. No additional details on the underlying dispute or lower court proceedings appear in the opinion.
The case Shamieh, M.D. v. Liquid Transport involved a dispute, apparently a workers' compensation or personal injury matter concerning Rudolph Jackson, between Dr. Fayez Shamieh and the defendant company along with its insurer Great West Casualty Company. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application in the matter. Justice Traylor indicated he would have granted the writ, though the per curiam opinion provided no further reasoning or explanation for the denial.
In Cannon v. Bertrand, a partner who withdrew from a Louisiana limited liability partnership sued for a judicial determination of the value of his one-third interest under Civil Code Arts. 2823-25 after the parties could not agree on a buyout price for the partnership's rural land holdings. The district court and appellate court valued the assets at approximately $1.05 million and applied a 35% minority discount, reducing the plaintiff's share to about $228,000. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that no minority discount applies when the remaining partners are purchasing the interest; instead, the withdrawing partner's share must be valued at one-third of the fair market value of the underlying partnership assets ($1,054,368), less offsets for amounts owed by the plaintiff, resulting in a judgment of $347,894.84 plus interest. The court reasoned that the statutory term 'value' is best measured by asset market value in this context to ensure equitable treatment, distinguishing prior precedent in Shopf v. Marina Del Ray Partnership where transactions were not at arm's length.
This case involved a lawsuit by Belinda and George Forbes on behalf of their minor child Joshua, who was injured in a car accident while a passenger in a vehicle driven by Rodney Cockerham that left Highway 37 and struck trees. A jury allocated 60% fault to the driver and 40% to the State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) for the road's design and maintenance. The trial court granted the DOTD's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), finding no liability, which the court of appeal reversed. The Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's JNOV, concluding that the driver's actions were the sole legal cause of the accident and that the highway's condition did not impose liability on the DOTD.
The case involved a dispute between plaintiffs John and Elaine Curley and defendant CLECO Corporation. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application seeking review of a lower court decision. Two justices noted they would have granted the writ, but the denial means the prior ruling stands without further consideration by the high court. No substantive reasoning or facts about the underlying claims were provided in the court's order.
The case concerned a dispute involving Glencoe Education Foundation, operator of a charter school, the parish clerk of court and recorder of mortgages, and multiple contractors and insurers over mortgages or liens related to construction work. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied both the requested stay and the writ application, leaving the lower court's ruling in place without further review. Justice Traylor dissented, stating he would have granted the writ to reinstate the trial court's decision. The opinion provides no extended reasoning beyond the denial itself, which addresses procedural handling of the underlying litigation.
This case concerned a challenge to sections of Lafayette's Code of Ordinances regulating junked or abandoned motor vehicles as a public nuisance, including definitions of such vehicles, procedures for notice and seizure, and exemptions for vehicles stored in certain ways. The plaintiff, whose vehicles were seized under the ordinance, obtained summary judgment from the trial court declaring several provisions unconstitutional on their face and as applied. On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The court reasoned that the trial court should not have reached the constitutional questions without first considering whether the case could be resolved on non-constitutional grounds. The case was sent back for further proceedings consistent with that approach.
The case Shawanda Wilson v. Dr. Oscar Mendez involved a lawsuit brought by Wilson individually and on behalf of Alara Cyprian Wilson against a physician. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application, leaving the lower court's ruling in place. Justices Traylor and Knoll dissented from the denial, stating they would have granted review. No substantive reasoning was provided in the court's order beyond the denial itself.