Herbert William Christenberry

The case involved graduates of Southern University Law School who failed the July 1974 Louisiana Bar Examination and sued the Louisiana State Bar Association, alleging that the lack of written objective grading criteria and the absence of post-examination review violated their due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge federal court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages. The court reasoned that the examination procedures, which included anonymous grading, general and specific criteria provided to examiners, and a multi-level review process for failing or borderline papers by the Committee on Bar Admissions, were constitutional, and that the opportunity for re-examination satisfied due process requirements, consistent with prior precedent.

civil rightsprocedure

The State of Louisiana, representing turtle farmers and shippers, sued the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the FDA Commissioner seeking a declaratory judgment that a 1975 FDA regulation banning the sale and distribution of small turtles was invalid, as it would eliminate a major industry in the state. The defendants moved to dismiss the state's claims for lack of standing. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged economic injury in fact to an interest within the zone protected by the Administrative Procedure Act, satisfying Article III's case-or-controversy requirement and the standards from cases such as Data Processing Service v. Camp. The opinion emphasized that even a minor economic harm provides the concrete adverseness needed for judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 702.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a plaintiff's claim for statutory damages under the Truth-in-Lending Act and Regulation Z for alleged inadequate disclosures in a loan transaction, where the defendant counterclaimed for the unpaid balance on the promissory note. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no violations of the Act or regulations and awarding the defendant the amount due on the note plus interest and attorney's fees. The court reasoned that identifying the security interest through a separate chattel mortgage satisfied the requirement for meaningful disclosure under 12 C.F.R. § 226.8(b)(5), and that breaking down the finance charge was unnecessary under 12 C.F.R. § 226.8(d)(3) when it consisted solely of interest, consistent with Federal Reserve Board guidance. The material facts were undisputed, and the plaintiff raised no defenses to the counterclaim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Gaulter v. Capdeboscq, an Australian citizen plaintiff, acting as authorized agent for her Louisiana-citizen husband on behalf of their marital community, brought a possessory action seeking damages and injunctive relief over disputed real property in Tangipahoa Parish, alleging that local sheriff and clerk officials conspired with private defendants under color of law to violate her due process and equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3). The court determined that diversity jurisdiction was absent under 28 U.S.C. § 1359 because the plaintiff's appointment as agent was made to manufacture diversity, applying factors such as the husband's normal role as head of the community, his greater interest in the suit, and the local nature of the boundary dispute. However, the court held that the complaint adequately stated claims under §§ 1983 and 1985(3) by alleging joint action by state officials and a conspiracy to deprive rights, and it granted a permanent injunction prohibiting trespass, harassment, and related acts until ownership is resolved in the parallel state proceeding.

civil rightsprocedureproperty

The case involved a plaintiff employed by a temporary help service who was injured while painting a structure known as the MV BUNA, a former steamboat that had been stripped of propulsion equipment, permanently moored to shore with utility connections, and used as an office by defendant Federal Barge Lines. The plaintiff sued the defendant in admiralty, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness on the theory that the BUNA remained a vessel in navigation and that the claim had sufficient maritime contacts. The court treated the defendant's motion as one for summary judgment and granted it, concluding that the structure was no longer functioning as a vessel and was instead an extension of land, and that the tort lacked the necessary maritime nexus under Fifth Circuit precedents such as Cook v. Belden Concrete Products. The decision rested on the BUNA's actual function and status at the time of the injury, the nature of the plaintiff's painting work, and the absence of direct ties to traditional maritime activity.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Charles Froust sued his employer Coating Specialists, Inc. and its insurers under the Jones Act and general maritime law, claiming he developed silicosis from negligence and unseaworthy sandblasting equipment during his employment as a sandblaster from 1959 to 1970; a separate action sought maintenance and cure. The parties stipulated to liability and damages of $175,000 against the employer, leaving only the question of which insurers were responsible. The court found that silicosis qualifies as a disease rather than an injury by accident, and that the prior insurers' policies covered only diseases where the last exposure occurred during their policy periods. Because the plaintiff's final exposure and manifestation of the disease fell within the coverage period of Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association, that insurer was held liable to indemnify the employer, while all earlier insurers were dismissed.

torts & liability

In May v. Lease Service, Inc., plaintiff Jerry May, an employee working on a fixed offshore platform owned by Mobil Oil, sued the owner of the vessel M/V WANDERING STAR for unseaworthiness and negligence after he fell from the platform onto the vessel's deck during unloading operations involving a crane and drill powered by a cable from the ship. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that maritime jurisdiction did not apply. The court granted the motion, ruling that the accident on a fixed platform lacked the necessary connection to the vessel under precedents such as Victory Carriers v. Law and Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty, as the equipment was permanently affixed to the platform, not an appurtenance of the ship, and the causal factors originated on the platform.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved three consolidated lawsuits by Louisiana corporations seeking refunds of income and personal holding company taxes paid after the IRS disallowed depletion deductions they had claimed on 'selection bonus' payments received under oil and gas leases for tax years 1962-1964. The companies had treated the payments as initial lease bonuses eligible for percentage depletion under IRC sections 611 and 613, but the IRS classified them as delay rentals and assessed deficiencies that the plaintiffs paid. The court examined the lease language, which required the payments to retain the lease after an initial selection period and allowed avoidance only by surrendering the premises, and compared it to precedents distinguishing bonuses from rentals. It concluded that the payments functioned as delay rentals because they accrued with the passage of time, extended the lease term, and could be avoided by abandonment, making them nondeductible under applicable Treasury regulations and Fifth Circuit case law.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned conditions of confinement at Orleans Parish Prison in New Orleans. After a hearing on a Rule to Show Cause, the district court adopted the uncontroverted Special Master’s Report and ordered the City of New Orleans and the Criminal Sheriff to implement a series of immediate reforms. The orders required continued medical services and construction of a new prison hospital-infirmary, a permanent recreation program with adequate staffing, creation of a professional Department of Detention and Corrections, strict limits on the inmate population and use of the existing Broad Street facility after March 1, 1975, increased and better-trained security personnel, and numerous physical plant improvements including sanitation, lighting, and safety systems. The court directed the Special Master to report on compliance within 30 days.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves ten defendants, including New Orleans District Attorney Garrison and two police officers, charged in a single-count indictment with conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1511 to obstruct Louisiana's enforcement of its criminal laws against illegal gambling businesses. The defendants filed numerous pretrial motions seeking dismissal of the indictment, severance, suppression of evidence, discovery, and other relief, with many arguments focused on the constitutionality of the statute. The court granted the motions allowing defendants to adopt their codefendants' filings but denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that § 1511 is constitutional under the commerce clause and does not violate the Tenth Amendment or due process protections, consistent with decisions upholding a related provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. It also denied most remaining motions after considering the parties' memoranda and arguments.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involves 14 defendants, including Bally Manufacturing Corporation and its president, charged in a 29-page indictment with one conspiracy count and 15 substantive counts under federal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1952, 1955, and 2) for manufacturing, transporting across state lines, and operating Bally bingo pinball machines as part of gambling businesses in Louisiana. The court ruled on over a hundred pretrial motions filed by the defendants, denying all except those expressly granted, and addressed motions to dismiss the indictment. The core reasoning examined whether the federal charges, which require proof of an underlying violation of state law (specifically La.R.S. § 14:90), were undermined by alleged conflicts with other Louisiana statutes regulating pinball machines and by the government's presentation to the grand jury.

criminal lawfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a worker injured in 1969 while unloading cargo from a vessel onto a fixed drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana, who sued the platform owner Chevron in 1971 for personal injuries. Chevron and related parties moved for summary judgment or dismissal, arguing that the suit was barred by Louisiana's one-year prescriptive period (made applicable by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and Supreme Court decisions in Rodrigue and Huson), that workers' compensation provided the exclusive remedy, that unseaworthiness claims did not apply to fixed platforms, and seeking indemnity from the employer. The court denied all motions, reasoning that the new one-year limit should apply only prospectively given the injury occurred before Rodrigue and the suit was filed before Huson clarified the rule, that factual issues remained on the compensation and unseaworthiness claims, and that indemnity presented triable disputes.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employmentfederal power

This case involved plaintiffs Bonanza International, Inc. and Stewart Investments, Inc. seeking to hold their former franchisee, Joseph Charles Corceller, Jr., in contempt for violating an October 28, 1971 injunction issued after termination of his Bonanza Sirloin Pit licensing agreement. The injunction barred Corceller from using Bonanza service marks and required compliance with a two-year non-compete covenant prohibiting operation of a low-cost steak dinner restaurant within 25 miles of the former location until September 7, 1973. After hearings, the court granted the contempt motion, finding that Corceller had delayed removal of exterior signs, failed to implement required price increases on steak items, retained the word "Pit" in the restaurant name, and used a menu item associated with Bonanza. The court ordered Corceller to change the restaurant name to eliminate references to "Pit" or steaks and awarded the plaintiffs a total of $2,000 in attorney's fees.

business & regulatory

In United States v. Lewis, two defendants who had pleaded guilty in 1958 and 1960 to failing to pay special occupational taxes and file returns required by 26 U.S.C. §§ 4411 and 4401 for gambling activities sought to vacate their convictions and recover the fines they paid through writs of error coram nobis. The government did not oppose vacating the convictions in light of the Supreme Court's later rulings in Marchetti v. United States and Grosso v. United States, which held that the tax provisions violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and applied retroactively, but it opposed repaying the fines. The court granted both forms of relief, holding that it had jurisdiction under the all-writs statute and the Tucker Act, that the defendants could not have voluntarily waived an unknown constitutional right when pleading guilty and paying the fines, and that restitution was therefore required. The convictions were vacated and the government was ordered to repay $2,000 and $1,000 respectively.

criminal lawtaxesfederal powerprocedure

In United States v. Garrison, defendant Jim Garrison, facing federal charges of conspiracy to obstruct state law enforcement related to illegal gambling, filed a pretrial motion under 28 U.S.C. § 144 seeking to recuse the assigned district judge. Garrison's affidavit alleged bias stemming from the judge's prior adverse ruling against him in his official capacity as District Attorney during the Clay Shaw prosecution and from Garrison's subsequent public criticism of the federal judiciary. The court denied the recusal motion, holding that the allegations were legally insufficient to establish personal bias or prejudice. The reasoning emphasized that prior adverse judicial decisions and public denunciations do not meet the statutory threshold for recusal, and that judges have a duty to preside when the standards are not satisfied.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a class action brought by Louisiana shrimp fishermen seeking injunctive, declaratory, and damages relief against state officials, claiming that five statutes regulating the shrimping industry (La. R.S. 56:493-497) violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments as well as federal commerce power. The three-judge district court held that it had proper jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284 because the suit challenged the constitutionality of state statutes. However, the court abstained from deciding the merits and retained jurisdiction pending state-court proceedings. The core reasoning was that the statutes had been recently amended in response to a state supreme court decision finding vagueness, a parallel state lawsuit was already pending, and a state-court construction could moot or substantially alter the federal constitutional questions.

criminal lawenvironmentprocedure

United Gas Pipe Line Company sued Lafourche Parish Police Jury and Drainage District No. 12 seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not required to relocate or lower three natural gas pipelines without receiving full compensation. The dispute arose after the drainage district demanded relocation to accommodate a new reservoir canal, relying on language in permits granted to United and on an asserted riparian servitude. The court granted summary judgment for United, holding that the permit language obligated relocation only for the specific canals described in those instruments, not for new construction. The court further ruled that no riparian servitude applied to require United to bear the costs, as the pipelines were installed pursuant to acquired rights-of-way on private land and the district's authority did not extend to uncompensated appropriation in this context.

propertybusiness & regulatoryfederal power

Union members sued their local longshoremen's union and its president to block collection of a three-cent-per-hour dues increase through payroll check-off and to recover sums already collected. After a prior ruling that the check-off was a dues increase subject to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, the union held a secret-ballot vote that passed by majority but not two-thirds, and then began collecting the increase. The members contended that the union's bylaws required a two-thirds vote and that the majority vote violated their rights under the LMRDA's Bill of Rights provision. The court held that the statute requires only a majority vote for dues increases by local unions and does not give federal courts authority to enforce internal union bylaws when no specific statutory right has been violated. The court therefore denied the injunction and the claim for return of the collected amounts.

labor & employment

This case involved a collision on the Mississippi River between the ocean-going freighter M/V NEW FRONTIERS and a flotilla of 25 coal barges being pushed by the tug MABA KELCE. The owners of two damaged barges sued the freighter's owner for damages, and the court held a bench trial on liability. The court found that the tug and tow were solely at fault for the collision and entered judgment for the defendant in the amount of $28,447.04. The core reasoning was that the vessels had agreed by radio and whistle signals to a port-to-port passing, the freighter complied with the agreement and the Inland Rules by staying to the right and reversing engines, but the tow negligently allowed its barges to slide or crab at an angle across the channel without a bow lookout or engine reversal, leaving insufficient room to pass safely.

torts & liability

This case involves the Bank of Louisiana seeking review of a bankruptcy referee's order that denied it secured creditor status in the bankruptcy of Pioneer Oil & Gas Co. The Bank based its claim on a state-court garnishment proceeding and judgment pro confesso against Pioneer, arguing that service of interrogatories in December 1962 effected a valid seizure and lien on Pioneer's assets. The referee had ruled that no valid lien was created under Louisiana law and alternatively that any lien would be invalid under Bankruptcy Act § 67(c)(1)(B). The court held that Louisiana garnishment statutes, read together, establish that the judgment pro confesso relates back to the date of service, creating a valid lien on the garnishee's property, and that this lien is judicial rather than statutory and therefore enforceable against the trustee.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty