|
Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions Carver v. Louisiana Dept. of Pub. Safety Docket: 2017-CA-1340 Opinion Date: January 30, 2018 Judge: Marcus R. Clark Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law The issue this case presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court’s review centered on the constitutionality of La. R.S. 32:667, particularly paragraphs La. R.S. 32:667 (H)(3) and (I)(1)(a). Plaintiff David Carver was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) pursuant to La. R.S. 14:98. Plaintiff refused to submit to a chemical test for intoxication and his license was suspended for 180 days. The arrest did not result in a conviction, as Plaintiff participated in a pre-trial diversion program. Plaintiff alleged La. R.S. 32:667 (H)(3) and (I)(1)(a) violated the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions. Following the District Court’s finding that the paragraphs violated the Due Process Clauses, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles (the State) directly appealed that finding to the Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court found that the applicable paragraphs did not violate the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions. Thus, the Court reversed the District Court’s judgment of unconstitutionality and remanded this case for further proceedings.
0 Comments
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions United States v. Ganji Docket: 16-31119 Opinion Date: January 30, 2018 Judge: Carl E. Stewart Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit reversed Defendants Ganji and Davis' convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit health care fraud, holding that the evidence was insufficient to convict defendants. In regard to Dr. Ganji, the court held that the Government failed to present evidence that allowed any rational juror to infer the existence of a conspiratorial agreement beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the record substantiated that once Dr. Ganji became affiliated with a specific home health care agency, her patients followed her instead of having to establish a new doctor-patient relationship with a medical professional at a different home health care agency. Furthermore, although the Government presented a plausible scheme of fraudulence, it did not implicate Davis in the scheme with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that Dr. Ganji could not be held liable for fraudulence as a result of activity that was legal. Because the Government based Davis' fraud completely on the actions of Dr. Ganji, Davis also did not commit fraud. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions United States v. Shepherd Docket: 15-50991 Opinion Date: January 26, 2018 Judge: Jerry E. Smith Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, holding that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary by ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). Defendant claimed that he is not currently, nor ever was, under a legal duty to register in Texas and that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to make that claim. The court held that, under the circumstances of this case, counsel's lack of inquiry beyond comparing two statutes was IAC and defendant was prejudiced by it. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment granting defendant's motion. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Ontiveros Soto v. Contreras Docket: 16-11541 Opinion Date: January 23, 2018 Judge: Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale Areas of Law: Family Law, International Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's grave-risk defense in plaintiff's action seeking return of their child to Mexico pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The court rejected defendant's claims that the district court improperly used a heightened standard in making its rulings. The court held that the record demonstrated that the district court's reference to "objective evidence" did not compel ruling that the findings of fact were "based on a misconception of the underlying legal standard." The court also held that defendant failed to show that the district court "labored under" the mistaken "assumption that threats against a parent can never create a grave risk of harm to his or her children." US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions United States v. Fairley Docket: 17-60001 Opinion Date: January 22, 2018 Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson Areas of Law: Criminal Law Defendant appealed his conviction for theft of government property (counts two and three) and conspiracy to commit theft of government property (count one). The court held that errors in the indictment, jury instruction, and verdict form directly undermined defendant's defense. Therefore, the court vacated defendant's convictions as to counts two and three. The court affirmed defendant's conviction under count one, as well as the district court's evidentiary and sentencing rulings. The court remanded for the district court to determine whether defendant's sentence should change in light of counts two and three being vacated. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Mance v. Sessions Docket: 15-10311 Opinion Date: January 19, 2018 Judge: Priscilla R. Owen Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to enjoin the enforcement of federal laws that generally prohibit the direct sale of a handgun by a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) to a person who is not a resident of the state in which the FFL is located. The court assumed without deciding, that the strict, rather than intermediate standard for scrutiny was applicable. The court held that the in-state sales requirement did not violate the Second Amendment because it was narrowly tailored to assure that an FFL who actually makes a sale of a handgun to someone other than another FFL can reasonably be expected to know and comply with the laws of the state in which the sale occurs. Furthermore, the in-state sales requirement was not unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs where the rule advanced government interests in the aggregate. The court also held that the in-state sales requirement did not violate the equal protection guarantee in the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. In this case, the in-state sales requirement did not favor or disfavor residents of any particular state. Instead, it imposed the same restrictions on sellers and purchasers of firearms in each state and the District of Columbia. Read Opinion Russian fish escaping into Louisiana waters? Sturgeon farming plan raises alarm www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2018/01/russian_fish_escaping_into_lou.html US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Sun v. Commissioner Docket: 16-60270 Opinion Date: January 18, 2018 Judge: Costa Areas of Law: Tax Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the $19 million given to petitioner to invest was not a tax-free loan. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the money became income to petitioner when he diverted it for his personal use, because he was realizing an economic benefit from the money; affirmed the tax court's imposition of penalties resulting from negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, because petitioner failed to show the complete disclosure of relevant facts to his accountants that would compel a good faith defense of reliance; and affirmed the tax court's decision allowing the IRS to recompute the amount of the deficiency after the tax court ruled that all the money was income to petitioner, as oppose to petitioner's corporation. In high-profile Louisiana case, justices lean toward death row inmate who says lawyer betrayed him www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_e3b16830-fbf6-11e7-8753-e74b3b4dfa6b.html Louisiana Lawmakers to Consider Riverboat Casino Changes www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2018-01-16/louisiana-lawmakers-to-consider-riverboat-casino-changes US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions United States v. Suarez Docket: 16-41267 Opinion Date: January 12, 2018 Judge: Priscilla R. Owen Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for his involvement in a drug trafficking conspiracy and for firearm offenses. The court held that defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. However, the court vacated defendant's sentence, holding that the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months of imprisonment was inapplicable. In this case, the court could not say that the jury "surely" would have found that defendant possessed the shotgun in furtherance of a drug trafficking at the time alleged in the indictment. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion under the plain error standard of review to remand to the district court for resentencing. Read Opinion Morgan v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. Docket: 17-30523 Opinion Date: January 11, 2018 Judge: Jerry E. Smith Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3)'s removal clock begins ticking upon receipt of the deposition transcript. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Murphy Oil's appeal of an order of remand under section 1446(b)(3), based on lack of jurisdiction. In this case, Murphy Oil itself had no right to be in federal court in the first place, and only Avondale, its codefendant, could invoke the federal officer removal statute. Had Avondale not chosen to remove, Murphy Oil could not have asserted officer jurisdiction on Avondale's behalf. The court held that Murphy Oil experienced no concrete and particularized injury sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact prong of Article III standing. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp. Docket: 14-31383 Opinion Date: January 9, 2018 Judge: Priscilla R. Owen Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Class Action Mobil Oil removed the underlying suits as a mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). On interlocutory appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Plaintiffs Bottley and Lester's respective motions to remand. The Fifth Circuit held that Mobil Oil was permitted to remove both plaintiffs' cases to federal court as a mass action under CAFA. In this case, the Bottley consolidation motion proposed a joint trial of 100 or more plaintiffs' claims, a mass action under CAFA. The court held that CAFA applied to Bottley and Lester even though Lester commenced prior to CAFA's effective date. Finally, the district court was permitted to order consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Larry Doiron, Inc. v. Specialty Rental Tools & Supply Docket: 16-30217 Opinion Date: January 8, 2018 Judge: W. Eugene Davis Areas of Law: Contracts, Admiralty & Maritime Law The Fifth Circuit considered this case en banc to modify the criteria set forth in Davis & Sons, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp. for determining whether a contract for performance of specialty services to facilitate the drilling or production of oil or gas on navigable waters was maritime. The court adopted a simpler, more straightforward test consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby for making this determination. The court adopted a two-prong test to determine whether a contract in this context was maritime: First, was the contract one to provide services to facilitate the drilling or production of oil and gas on navigable waters? Second, if the answer to the above question was "yes," did the contract provide or do the parties expect that a vessel will play a substantial role in the completion of the contract? Applying the new test to this case, the court held that the contract was nonmaritime and controlled by Louisiana law, which barred indemnity. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for LDI and granted summary judgment for STS. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions United States v. Lanier Docket: 16-20181 Opinion Date: January 2, 2018 Judge: Thomas Morrow Reavley Areas of Law: Criminal Law Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud (Count 1), wire fraud (Counts 2-15), harboring and concealing a person from arrest (Count 16), and assisting a federal offender (Count 17). The Fifth Circuit held that the convictions as to Counts 16 and 17 must be vacated, holding that defendant's conspiracy-furthering acts did not qualify as harboring acts simply because they provided a third party with a revenue stream that funded his life on the lam. In this case, the government has not shown that any of defendant's acts continued the harboring offense. The court affirmed in all other respects and remanded to the district court. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Cox v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. Docket: 16-60831 Opinion Date: December 29, 2017 Judge: Jerry Edwin Smith Areas of Law: Contracts, Insurance Law Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Provident on breach-of-contract and tortious-breach-of-contract claims stemming from two disability insurance policies that Provident issued to plaintiff. The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his disability resulted from injury and arthritis, in which case he would be entitled to lifelong benefits. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to the breach-of-contract claim. Even if plaintiff had not waived his claim for punitive damages based on the theory that Provident tortiously breached the contract, he failed to offer evidence showing that Provident lacked an arguable reason for administering his claim under the sickness provisions. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to this issue. Read Opinion |
Louisiana Law BlogLouisiana Law, News, Issues and Comments from Attorneys at the Shoultz Law Firm Archives
October 2024
Categories
|
RSS Feed