Jeffrey P. Victory

In State of Louisiana v. Daniel Marshall, the defendant was tried for second-degree murder after fatally shooting Ronald Hodges in a confrontation stemming from a romantic dispute involving Hodges's former partner; Marshall claimed self-defense at trial after Hodges allegedly rushed him. The jury convicted him of the lesser offense of manslaughter, but the court of appeal vacated the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecutor's cross-examination and argument about Marshall's post-Miranda silence violated Doyle v. Ohio and was not harmless. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision and reinstated the conviction and sentence, concluding that any Doyle violation was harmless error in light of the forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts showing Marshall continued firing after the victim fell and turned away, and Marshall's prior felony record that already undermined his credibility. The court emphasized that the guilty verdict was attributable to the strength of the state's case rather than the improper impeachment of Marshall's silence.

criminal lawprocedure

This class action lawsuit was brought by former Orleans Parish School Board employees terminated after Hurricane Katrina amid the state's takeover of most local schools under Act 35 and related financial interventions. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the suit in full. It held that res judicata barred the claims because prior related proceedings had resolved the issues, with no exceptional circumstances justifying an exception to that doctrine. The court further concluded that, even absent res judicata, neither the school board nor state defendants had violated the plaintiffs' due process rights in conducting the reductions in force or related notices and procedures.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerned a challenge by teachers' unions and individuals to Act 1 of 2012, a Louisiana law that amended numerous statutes in Title 17 regarding elementary and secondary education, including changes to teacher tenure, performance evaluations, school board powers, superintendent contracts, and reduction-in-force policies. The district court ruled the Act unconstitutional for violating the single-object requirement of La. Const. art. III, § 15(A), which mandates that legislative bills embrace only one object expressed in the title. On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that Act 1 satisfied the requirement because its provisions were all naturally connected and germane to the single unifying object of improving education through tenure reform and effectiveness-based performance standards. The court emphasized a broad interpretation of the single-object rule, noting that a bill may contain multiple provisions so long as they are incidental to one object and that invalidation requires a grave and palpable conflict, which was not shown here. The case was remanded for consideration of the plaintiffs' remaining constitutional claims regarding due process.

labor & employment

This case involved Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC challenging decisions or actions taken by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals regarding its operations as a healthcare provider. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application filed by the healthcare company. One justice indicated a willingness to grant the writ and hear the matter on the merits. The denial leaves the lower court's ruling in place without further review by the high court.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case Mathews v. Steib was a civil dispute between Dr. Ronnie Mathews, M.D. and Mary Elizabeth Broussard Mathews on one side and Joseph Steib on the other, which reached the Louisiana Supreme Court on a writ application numbered 2012-C-0106. The court denied the writ application without elaboration. Justice Victory noted that he would have granted the writ. No further details about the underlying claims or lower court proceedings appear in the opinion.

procedure

The case Evanston Insurance Company v. Kimmel, LLC was an insurance dispute involving a law firm and two insurance carriers. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application for review of a lower court decision. Justice Victory noted that he would have granted the application. As a result, the prior ruling remains in place without further consideration by the state's highest court.

procedurebusiness & regulatory