Robert Frederick Collins

The case involves Frances Marie Williams bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputy Sheriff Danny Divittoria and Sheriff J. Edward Layrisson for false arrest and malicious prosecution, alleging her arrest and charge for public intimidation lacked probable cause. The court granted summary judgment to Sheriff Layrisson, dismissing him from the suit, because he had no personal involvement in the arrest, incarceration, or prosecution. The court denied summary judgment to Deputy Divittoria, holding that Louisiana's limited res judicata rules at the time did not bar the claims, as the prior preliminary examination's probable cause finding lacked the required identities of parties, cause, and relief to preclude relitigation under state preclusion principles.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involved a dispute between Carter-Green-Redd, Inc. and the USS Cabot/Dedalo Museum Foundation over two option agreements for the potential lease of the vessel DEDALO to operate as a museum and gambling casino. Carter paid $47,000 for the options, which the Foundation used for the vessel's operating expenses, but the deal collapsed when the Spanish government withheld consent for casino use; Carter then arrested the vessel and sought a maritime lien to recover the funds. The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the option contracts were not maritime contracts subject to admiralty jurisdiction because their subject matter did not directly relate to vessel operation, navigation, or commerce. The court further reasoned that the written terms of the agreements controlled under the parol evidence rule, making irrelevant any claims about how the funds were spent or representations made during negotiations.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a 1986 car accident in which a rental vehicle driven by Martin Unger, an employee of Charles Lewis Pump Company, collided with a tractor-trailer, leading to multiple lawsuits by injured parties and a $125,000 settlement of David Provost's claims funded by Budget Rent-A-Car of New Orleans ($25,000), Columbia Casualty ($50,000), and Aetna ($50,000). The remaining dispute concerned the priority of insurance coverage and which parties were obligated to reimburse the settlement contributions. Applying Louisiana law that an employer's insurance is primary to an employee's personal policy when the employee is acting within the scope of employment, the court determined that Budget-New Orleans was primarily liable up to $100,000 and ordered it to reimburse Aetna $50,000 and half of Columbia's contribution.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Delays Brock, who was injured in a slip and fall at Chevron's plant while working for a contractor as a fire-watch hand, and his wife sued Chevron for damages. Chevron moved for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from tort liability as Brock's statutory employer under Louisiana's Workers' Compensation Act. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims, reasoning that the 1989 amendment to the Act made the contract work part of Chevron's trade, business, or occupation regardless of factors like specialization or whether it was usually contracted out, overriding the prior Berry test.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In Johnson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., homeowners sued the exterminating company after termite damage was discovered in their slab-constructed home, seeking repair costs and related damages following Orkin's denial of the claim under their service agreement. The agreement, signed in 1988, provided a renewable re-treatment guarantee that explicitly limited Orkin's obligations to additional treatments only and excluded liability for repairs, particularly for slab homes and Formosan termites. Orkin moved for partial summary judgment to restrict its liability accordingly. The court granted the motion, holding that the contract's clear terms, including an integration clause, governed the parties' obligations and barred claims for damages beyond re-treatment. The decision relied on principles of contract interpretation under Louisiana law, finding that prior representations or brochures did not alter the written agreement.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In Frey v. Amoco Production Co., plaintiffs moved for judgment that Amoco, as operator of gas units in which they held interests, was subject to the Louisiana Public Records Law and owed them a full pre-suit accounting of royalties. The court denied the motion, holding that Amoco is not a public body under the statute and that the Mineral Code does not require an accounting before judicial demand. The core reasoning was that the Public Records Act covers only governmental entities and certain nonprofits receiving state appropriations, not private corporations licensed to operate units or collect severance taxes, and that statutory remedies for royalty disputes are limited to damages or lease cancellation after suit.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Robert J. Guidry suing Bank of LaPlace, its senior vice president Patrick Guidry, and First National Bank of Commerce for allegedly aiding Martin’s Ponzi scheme through bank account services, overdraft permissions, and representations about legitimacy, asserting federal RICO violations, securities fraud, common-law fraud, and negligence claims after Guidry lost over $12 million in post-dated checks. The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss all counts under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b). It held that a bank account does not qualify as a RICO enterprise, post-dated checks are not securities, the fraud allegations failed to meet particularity requirements by omitting specific who-what-when-where-how details, and banks and their officers owe no duty of care to non-customer third parties under Louisiana law. The motion for a more definite statement was dismissed as moot.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved claims by William Crisman, a mechanic employed by ODECO since 1970 on offshore drilling rigs, and his wife Patricia, alleging personal injuries including hearing loss, chemical toxicity, respiratory problems, and fear of cancer from workplace exposures to paints, welding fumes, solvents, and other substances, along with a loss of consortium claim. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims had prescribed under the applicable three-year statute of limitations. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims, finding that Crisman had actual or constructive knowledge of his injuries and their causal connection to his employment by at least 1984 (or earlier for the hearing loss), based on the symptoms recurring only at work, resolving at home, and medical information he received, making the 1988 lawsuit untimely under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The wife's derivative claim was also dismissed as time-barred.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiff O. William Reeder's claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Louisiana securities law against defendants Bank of LaPlace and the Succession of Michael B. Palmer. Reeder alleged he invested funds in a Ponzi scheme disguised as a travel club, receiving postdated checks in return that were later dishonored, and that the bank aided the scheme by permitting overdrafts. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), holding that the postdated checks were not securities. The reasoning centered on the checks failing the family resemblance test for notes and the Howey test for investment contracts, as they provided only a fixed return without profits derived from the efforts of others or a common enterprise.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a class action lawsuit brought by residents of New Orleans alleging personal injuries and property damage from exposure to anhydrous ammonia fumes after a tank car leak on August 12, 1988, which led to their forced evacuation. The suit was filed in Louisiana state court, and the defendant removed it to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs moved to remand, contending that the amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied for every class member. The court granted the remand, holding that Supreme Court precedent requires each plaintiff in a Rule 23(b)(3) class action to meet the jurisdictional threshold individually and that the defendant had not met its burden of proof, particularly given Louisiana procedural rules barring specific damage amounts in pleadings.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved royalty owners who leased mineral rights to Amoco Production Company and claimed they were entitled to royalties on take-or-pay payments Amoco received from Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation under a gas sales contract, as well as on certain balancing agreements and side deals. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on these issues. It denied the plaintiffs' motion regarding non-take-or-pay issues due to disputed facts about overproduction and lack of evidence on side deals. On the take-or-pay issues, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted Amoco's, holding that the lease and Louisiana Mineral Code require royalties only on amounts realized from the actual sale of gas, and take-or-pay payments do not qualify as such under the lease terms or relevant jurisprudence like Diamond Shamrock.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Transload & Transport, Inc. sued defendants American Marine Underwriters, Inc. and Employers Insurance of Wausau to recover insurance proceeds for damage to a barge under a marine insurance policy. The plaintiff, which had filed for bankruptcy, moved to dismiss the action without prejudice to pursue it in bankruptcy court, while the defendants moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion to dismiss and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court reasoned that the plaintiff lacked standing because the bankruptcy trustee was the real party in interest under federal bankruptcy law. The court further held that the claim was time-barred under a valid policy provision limiting suits to twelve months after discovery of the loss, as interpreted under Louisiana insurance statutes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Richmond v. United States, taxpayers Robert and Barbara Richmond sued for a refund after the IRS partially disallowed their claimed charitable deductions for donating a perpetual facade easement on their French Quarter property to the City of New Orleans. The court determined that the easement's total value was $59,000 based on the government's expert appraisal using a before-and-after valuation method, entitling the plaintiffs to deductions of no more than $14,750 (their 25% share), and upheld additional interest penalties because their $150,000 valuation on the tax returns constituted a substantial overstatement in a tax-motivated transaction. Plaintiffs' witnesses failed to establish a higher value or quantify any financing difficulties from the easement, so the court adopted the government's figure and granted only a partial refund while dismissing claims based on higher valuations.

taxesproperty

This case originated as a class action by black voters challenging Louisiana's 1981 congressional redistricting plan under Act 20, alleging that it diluted minority voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act and constitutional amendments. A three-judge panel ruled for the plaintiffs, declaring the plan illegal and enjoining its enforcement, after which the legislature submitted a remedial plan. The present opinion addresses the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs following the magistrate's recommendation of reduced amounts. The court awards $335,846.15 in fees and $28,288.16 in costs, applying standards under the Voting Rights Act to adjust claimed hours for duplication and excess while rejecting across-the-board reductions and crediting the plaintiffs' full success on the merits.

civil rightselections

This admiralty case under the Suits in Admiralty Act involved the owner of the fishing vessel F/V CHERYL LEE suing the United States after the vessel sank during a distress incident on March 26, 1986, alleging negligence by Coast Guard personnel in responding to the sinking and failing to salvage it or promptly dispatch a commercial salvor. The court dismissed the claims with prejudice after a bench trial. It found that the Coast Guard's search-and-rescue response was appropriate and that its decision not to attempt salvage was reasonable because the vessel was not salvageable by the time responders arrived. The court further concluded that shoreside personnel did not negligently delay in contacting a private salvor and that any such delay was not a proximate cause of the loss.

federal powertorts & liability

This case involved federal employee unions and individuals challenging President Reagan's Executive Order 12564, which mandated drug-free workplace policies including drug testing programs for federal agencies, along with related OPM guidance in the Federal Personnel Manual. The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment and Rehabilitation Act claims without prejudice due to lack of standing and ripeness, as plaintiffs failed to show any members were currently or imminently subject to testing. It dismissed Civil Service Reform Act claims with prejudice, finding the Executive Order consistent with existing law. However, it invalidated the Federal Personnel Manual Letter 792-16 for violating the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements, as it functioned as a binding rule.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involved ERA Helicopters suing Allison Gas Turbine Division (along with Bell Helicopter) for damage to a Bell 206L1 helicopter allegedly caused by a defective Allison engine, asserting claims in tort, strict liability, and warranty. The court granted Allison's motions for summary judgment, dismissing all tort and strict liability claims as well as the remaining warranty claim. For the tort claims, the court applied the economic loss doctrine from East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc. and Shipco 2295, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., holding that the finished helicopter was the relevant product and that contract remedies govern economic losses rather than tort recovery against component manufacturers. For the warranty claim, the court found the 12-month/1,000-hour warranty had expired after over four years and 3,115 hours of operation, and even if applicable it expressly limited remedies to repair or replacement while excluding consequential damages. The rulings were based on the parties' bargain and the clear, unambiguous terms of the warranty under Louisiana contract law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In James v. Edwards, a death-sentenced inmate filed a Section 1983 action claiming that Louisiana's statute limiting the time to seek certiorari after a stay of execution to 30-45 days conflicted with the federal 90-day period under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) and violated due process and equal protection. The court granted a temporary restraining order to prevent the scheduled execution, finding irreparable harm and a potential supremacy-clause violation, but later dissolved the order. It reasoned that the stay itself afforded the plaintiff the full federal 90-day period to petition for certiorari, rendering the dispute moot under principles that an actual controversy must persist and that the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception did not apply here.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's grant of a discharge to debtor Walter W. Johnson, which creditor Oliver H. Daniel challenged under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5) for alleged failure to explain losses in asset values. The district court affirmed the discharge after reviewing evidence that the debtor's interests in thoroughbred partnerships declined due to documented events such as horse injuries, insurance collections, sales at reduced prices, and dissolutions, along with explanations for changes in mortgages, investments, and liabilities. The court applied the burden-shifting framework where the creditor must first show the need for an explanation and the debtor must then provide a credible one, after which the creditor bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. It held that the bankruptcy court's finding of a satisfactory explanation was not clearly erroneous on the record presented.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) suing Xanthas, Inc. for 182 instances of copyright infringement under federal law, stemming from public performances of copyrighted musical compositions on unregistered jukeboxes operated by the defendant in various Louisiana establishments. The court granted summary judgment issuing a permanent injunction against further infringements by Xanthas and, after a trial on damages, entered judgment against the defendant for $319,500 in statutory damages along with attorneys' fees and costs. The core reasoning rested on findings of fact establishing multiple unauthorized performances across numerous locations and dates, the defendant's ownership and operation of hundreds of unregistered jukeboxes, and application of the Copyright Act provisions allowing enhanced statutory damages for willful violations tied to unpaid registration fees.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure