Louisiana craft beer industry moves forward after controversial advisory


​www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/business/article_275dd148-25fd-11e7-9c5b-072b44d09232.html

​U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Broca-Martinez

Docket: 16-40817
Opinion Date: April 28, 2017
Judge: Edward C. Prado
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from an initial stop, holding that a state computer database indication of insurance status may establish reasonable suspicion when the officer was familiar with the database and the system itself was reliable. Officers initially stopped defendant after a computer search lead to the discovery that he was in the country illegally and was harboring undocumented immigrants at his residence. Defendant conditionally plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens. In this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the officer's testimony provided sufficient support for the reliability of the database where the officer explained the process for inputting license plate information, described how records in the database were kept, and noted that he was familiar with these records.

​U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Chamberlin v. Fisher, Commissioner

Docket: 15-70012
Opinion Date: April 27, 2017
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

After a jury convicted Lisa Jo Chamberlin of two counts of capital murder and sentenced her to death, the district court granted habeas relief on the ground that the state court erred in finding that there was no racial exclusion of jurors at her trial. Chamberlin, a white defendant, had challenged the exclusion of black jurors. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the ground that the Mississippi court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts under 18 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2). In this case, the court explained that clear and convincing evidence, including more damning comparative juror analysis than existed in Miller-El v. Dretke or Reed v. Quarterman, rebuts the state court's finding of no discrimination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

​Prystash v. Davis

Docket: 16-70014
Opinion Date: April 26, 2017
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for his involvement in a murder-for-hire, sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's denial of his habeas petition. The court denied a COA as to the procedural default ruling because the grounds petitioner cited for cause were either not raised in the district court or sought an extension of Martinez/Trevino beyond the realm of ineffective assistance claims for which there was no supporting authority. The court also concluded that petitioner failed to meet the COA standard for any of his claims relating to the failure to disclose the circumstances surrounding a codefendant's confession; claims relating to the denial of petitioner's right to present mitigating evidence; claims of error for the trial court to allow the prosecution to introduce evidence of past adjudicated offenses; and a claim that petitioner did not pull the trigger in the victim's murder. Accordingly, the court denied the application of COA.

​State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Flowers

Docket: 16-60310
Opinion Date: April 26, 2017
Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson
Areas of Law: Insurance Law

State Farm filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that a homeowner's insurance policy issued by State Farm to Cedric Flowers was void ab initio as a result of material misrepresentations made by him in his application for the policy. The district court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. In this case, the district court noted that, in both his answer to State Farm's complaint and his response to State Farm's request for admission, Cedric Flowers admitted to telling the agent who took his insurance application that he was the owner of the property and to stating as much in his application. Because there was no actual controversy over whether Cedric Flowers made a material misstatement on his insurance application, the court affirmed the judgment.

Louisiana infrastructure receives D+ rating


​www.wwl.com/articles/louisiana-infrastructure-receives-d-rating

Louisiana Senate votes to eliminate life sentences without parole for juveniles


​www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/04/juvenile_lifers_change.html

​Jacked Up, LLC v. Sara Lee Corp.

Docket: 15-11019
Opinion Date: April 25, 2017
Judge: Edward C. Prado
Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts

Jacked Up and Sara Lee signed a licensing agreement whereby Sara Lee would produce and sell energy drinks developed by Jacked Up. Sara Lee sold its beverage division to the J.M. Smucker Company and Smucker decided not to assume Sara Lee's licensing agreement. After Sara Lee formally terminated the agreement, Jacked Up filed suit against Sara Lee, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and fraudulent inducement. Jacked Up joined claims against Smucker for, among other things, tortious interference with a contract and trade secret misappropriation. The district court granted summary judgment against Jacked Up on all claims. In regard to claims against Sara Lee, the court reversed the district court's conclusion that Section 14(b) of the agreement unambiguously permitted Sara Lee to terminate the licensing agreement at will; there are genuine disputes about whether Sara Lee breached the contract and whether Jacked Up performed under the contract, and thus the court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Sara Lee on Jacked Up's breach of contract claim; the court affirmed as to the breach of fiduciary claim because Jacked Up failed to point to sufficient evidence that would support finding a fiduciary relationship between the parties; the court reversed as to the fraud and fraudulent inducement claim because, at the very least, there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Jacked Up's reliance on Sara Lee's representations was justifiable. In regard to claims against Smucker, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Smucker on the tortious interference claim; affirmed as to the trade secret misappropriation claim; affirmed the denial of Jacked Up's Rule 56(d) motion for a continuance; and the court left it to the district court to determine whether Jacked Up has put forth sufficient evidence of damages.

​United States v. McClure

Docket: 15-41641
Opinion Date: April 25, 2017
Judge: James Earl Graves, Jr.
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant plead guilty to being a felon in possession. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment for narcotics trafficking, contending that prosecution of the charges is barred by the terms of a 2012 plea agreement. The court explained that information leading to that charge was obtained during the course of the Government's investigation of defendant for public corruption and narcotics trafficking, which eventually gave rise to the charges in the instant indictment. The court agreed with the district court that the instant charges were based on a separate and distinct course of conduct from the felon in possession offense to which defendant plead guilty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

​U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Ortega

Docket: 16-50301
Opinion Date: April 25, 2017
Judge: Carolyn Dineen King
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to charges of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, he challenged the district court's denial of his motion to compel disclosure of the identities of confidential informants and his motion to suppress. Defendant also challenged the factual basis of his guilty plea. The court rejected defendant's arguments regarding his motion to compel disclosure and the factual basis of his guilty plea. However, the court vacated defendant's convictions and sentences for additional fact findings, remanding for the district court to determine whether Officer Parkinson included the false statement at issue intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. If after making the intent finding, the district court again denies defendant's motion to suppress, the district court shall reinstate the convictions and sentences, and defendant may then appeal.

​Votes uncertain on controversial Louisiana prison, sentencing changes



www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/04/votes_on_controversial_louisia.html

Houma-Thibodaux has lost another 1,300 jobs, new figures show

​
www.dailycomet.com/business/20170424/houma-thibodaux-has-lost-another-1300-jobs-new-figures-show

Despite Supreme Court rulings, parole opportunities for juveniles convicted of murder in Louisiana uncommon


​www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_260547a6-2849-11e7-8814-97e4d57ef5fd.html

Could the death penalty be abolished in Louisiana?


​www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/crime/2017/04/24/could-death-penalty-abolished-louisiana/100851542/

​U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Texas

Docket: 16-20174
Opinion Date: April 21, 2017
Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson
Areas of Law: Insurance Law

Plaintiff, a dependent eligible for benefits under the Eyesys Vision Inc. group health plan, filed suit challenging Humana's denial of benefits. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment for Humana. The court found that Texas's anti-discretionary clause does not change the court's normal abuse of discretion deference pursuant to Pierre v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co./Life Insurance Co. of North America. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that Humana's consideration of the Mihalik criteria was proper because the record supported a finding that the Mihalik criteria are in line with national standards. Finally, the court concluded that it was not unreasonable on this record to conclude that plaintiff could be treated with a less costly, equally effective outpatient treatment. Therefore, substantial evidence supported Humana's finding that further treatment for plaintiff at the Avalon Hills facility was not medically necessary. The court found plaintiff's remaining arguments were without merit and affirmed the judgment.