This case involves a dispute in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding over entitlement to a brokerage commission from the sale of two radio stations owned by debtor Inter Urban Broadcasting. Appellant Schütz claimed the commission based on a 1989 pre-petition agreement under which he introduced buyer Noble, while appellee Blackburn sought the fee after being authorized to negotiate and complete the sale under the confirmed reorganization plan. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's rulings granting Blackburn's nunc pro tunc appointment as broker, approving its fee as an administrative expense, and denying Schütz any commission. The court reasoned that professional brokers require court approval under 11 U.S.C. §§ 327 and 330, Schütz's pre-petition contract produced no benefit to the estate and was not approved post-petition, and the bankruptcy court's factual findings on Blackburn's disinterestedness, good faith, and excusable neglect were not clearly erroneous.
This case concerned the St. Tammany Parish School Board's decision to remove the book Voodoo & Hoodoo from all school libraries after a parent objected to its descriptions of voodoo practices, which she believed could encourage dangerous behavior among students. The plaintiffs sued, claiming the removal violated the First Amendment's free speech and establishment clauses, as well as parallel Louisiana constitutional provisions. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. It reasoned that under Board of Education v. Pico, the board's action was impermissibly motivated by disagreement with the book's content and religious objections, as shown by statements from board members and committee participants invoking religious views rather than legitimate educational concerns.
The case involved a dispute between Durham and Vanguard Bank over a mortgage on a New Orleans property, a related settlement agreement that included a quitclaim deed (dation en paiement), and alleged oral assurances by the bank extending the redemption deadline. Durham sued for breach of contract, fraud, and related claims after the bank recorded the deed without notice when a sale was pending. Vanguard moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that Louisiana's credit agreement statute (La. Rev. Stat. § 6:1121 et seq.) barred enforcement of any oral modifications because they were not in writing. The court denied the motion, holding that Vanguard, as a foreign bank, did not qualify as a financial institution authorized to transact business in the state under the statute and thus could not invoke its protections.
The case involved the United States suing dentist Dr. Drew Morvant under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act for allegedly refusing dental treatment to two HIV-positive individuals and engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against others with HIV. The defendant moved to dismiss the claims against him personally because he operated through a professional dental corporation and moved to strike demands for monetary damages for a deceased patient and unidentified aggrieved persons. The court denied both motions, holding that the ADA imposes liability on individuals who own or operate places of public accommodation and directly participate in discriminatory acts, that HIV is a covered disability, and that damages may be sought for pattern-or-practice violations even when some victims are initially unidentified or when survivorship statutes apply.
This case involves a maritime dispute under general average principles, where plaintiff Deutsche Shell sought contribution from defendant Placid Refining for expenses incurred in refloating its tanker DIALA after it grounded on the Mississippi River while carrying crude oil to Placid's refinery under a Crude Freight Service Arrangement. Placid raised defenses including laches, lack of cargo ownership at the time, and unseaworthiness of the vessel due to overloading and defective radar. The court rejected the first two defenses and found the vessel was not overloaded, but concluded there was no general average act because defective radar from Shell's poor maintenance rendered the DIALA unseaworthy and proximately caused the grounding. As a result, the court held Placid was not liable for any general average contribution.
This case involves the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), as conservator and receiver for a failed Louisiana savings and loan, asserting state-law negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims against former officers and directors for approving certain loan transactions. The RTC moved to strike the defendants' affirmative defenses of prescription (statute of limitations) and laches, arguing they could not succeed under any facts. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, striking all laches defenses but declining to strike any prescription defenses. It reasoned that FIRREA's federal limitations provisions (12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)) made the claims timely as they were brought within three years of the conservator's appointment, but state-law prescription issues remained potentially viable depending on accrual dates and other factors. The decision was based on the specific timeline of appointments, resignations, and filings without resolving underlying factual disputes.
