Terrebonne Parish curfew to be lifted

www.houmatimes.com/news/terrebonne-parish-curfew-to-be-lifted-starting-tonight/

Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions
Donelon v. Shilling

Docket: 2019-C-00514
Opinion Date: April 27, 2020
Judge: Crain
Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Civil Procedure, Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Insurance Law, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review in this case to determine whether the Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance was bound by an arbitration clause in an agreement between a health insurance cooperative and a third-party contractor. The Louisiana Health Cooperative, Inc. (“LAHC”), a health insurance cooperative created in 2011 pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, entered an agreement with Milliman, Inc. for actuarial and other services. By July 2015, the LAHC was out of business and allegedly insolvent. The Insurance Commissioner sought a permanent order of rehabilitation relative to LAHC. The district court entered an order confirming the Commissioner as rehabilitator and vesting him with authority to enforce contract performance by any party who had contracted with the LAHC. The Commissioner then sued multiple defendants in district court, asserting claims against Milliman for professional negligence, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation. According to that suit, the acts or omissions of Milliman caused or contributed to the LAHC’s insolvency. Milliman responded by filing a declinatory exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the Commissioner must arbitrate his claims pursuant to an arbitration clause in the agreement between the LAHC and Milliman. The Supreme Court concluded, however, the Commissioner was not bound by the arbitration agreement and accordingly could not be compelled to arbitrate its claims against Millman. The Court reversed the appellate court's judgment holding to the contrary, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

Louisiana: Stay-at-home until May 15, then some reopening

apnews.com/f2de894b86b7112393651d4d65f2b007

'Fake subpoena' lawsuit can proceed against Leon Cannizzaro, federal judges say


www.nola.com/news/courts/article_28c49ce6-841a-11ea-b431-979929e4085d.html

​Ramos v. Louisiana

Court: US Supreme Court
Docket: 18-5924
Opinion Date: April 20, 2020
Judge: Neil M. Gorsuch
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 48 states and in federal court, a single juror’s vote to acquit is enough to prevent a conviction; Louisiana and Oregon punish people based on 10-to-2 verdicts. Ramos was convicted in a Louisiana court by a 10-to-2 jury verdict and was sentenced to life without parole. The Supreme Court reversed. The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. Juror unanimity is a vital common law right. The Court rejected an “invitation” to “perform a cost-benefit analysis on the historic features of common law jury trials and to conclude that unanimity does not make the cut.” In overturning its 1972 “Apodaca” decision, the Court stated that the reasoning, in that case, was “gravely mistaken” and “sits uneasily with 120 years of preceding case law.” The fact that Louisiana and Oregon may need to retry defendants convicted of felonies by non-unanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on direct appeal “will surely impose a cost, but new rules of criminal procedure usually do.”

Read Opinion

Sanchez v. Young County

Docket: 19-10222
Opinion Date: April 22, 2020
Judge: Edith Brown Clement
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

After Diana Simpson died of a drug overdose while she was a pretrial detainee at the Young County Jail, her family filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, as well as a claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The Fifth Circuit previously affirmed summary judgment for the County in part, and remanded in part for the district court to evaluate plaintiffs' conditions-of-confinement theory in the first instance. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment on that theory and plaintiffs appealed. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims based on a failure to train based on the law-of-the-case doctrine. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' claims based on a failure to monitor because plaintiffs' evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to them, creates several disputes of material fact about whether the jail has a de facto policy of inadequately monitoring detainees. Furthermore, plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence to create fact issues over whether the County failed to assess pretrial detainees' medical needs and whether this caused plaintiff to be denied needed medical care. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part, remanding for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

Supreme Court Bolsters Unanimous Jury Rule in Louisiana Case

news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-bolsters-unanimous-jury-rule-in-louisiana-case

United States v. Hinojosa

Docket: 18-41134
Opinion Date: April 16, 2020
Judge: Jerry E. Smith
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the substance abuse testing requirement in defendant's term of supervised release. The court held that there was no conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, rejecting defendant's claims to the contrary. The court also held that the substance abuse testing condition related to, among other things, the nature and circumstances of defendant's offense, his personal history and characteristics, and the need to afford adequate deterrence. Therefore, the district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Luwisch v. American Marine Corp.

Docket: 19-30499
Opinion Date: April 15, 2020
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Admiralty & Maritime Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that American Marine was liable for most of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff was working as a seaman for American Marine when he was injured on board a vessel owned by the employer. The court held that American Marine has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s finding of unseaworthiness was clear error; American Marine failed to establish that plaintiff's accident was mostly his own fault where the district court clearly evaluated the evidence and made no inconsistent findings about causation, finding plaintiff 20 percent at fault; American Marine failed to carry its burden of demonstrating clear error in the district court's choice between competing experts; the district court's finding of diminished earning capacity was not clearly erroneous; in regard to the district court's award of past medical expenses because of American Marine's negligence, plaintiff's failure to prove that he was obliged to reimburse his attorneys for his medical expenses is irrelevant; and the district court did not clearly err in crediting plaintiff's testimony about his current condition.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Huntsberry

Docket: 18-31269
Opinion Date: April 10, 2020
Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for various drug offenses and for possessing firearms as a convicted felon. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's felon in possession conviction, because a reasonable jury could plausibly infer, based on the evidence presented, that defendant had knowledge of the weapons. Furthermore, even assuming the district court plainly erred in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), defendant failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for that error, much less that the error affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Finally, the court held that district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the felon-in-possession count from the drug counts.

Read Opinion

Dyer v. Houston

Docket: 19-10280
Opinion Date: April 9, 2020
Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal, on qualified immunity grounds, of their deliberate-indifference claims against paramedics and police officers employed by the City of Mesquite. Plaintiffs' claims arose out of the death of their 18 year old son from self-inflicted head trauma while in police custody. He died after violently bashing his head over 40 times against the interior of a patrol car while being transported to jail. The Fifth Circuit held that the complaint failed to allege facts that plausibly show the paramedics' deliberate indifference. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that the paramedics failed to provide additional care. However, the court held that precedent has consistently recognized that deliberate indifference cannot be inferred merely from a negligent or even a grossly negligent response to a substantial risk of serious harm. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of these claims. The court held that there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Officer Scott, like Gafford and Heidelburg, acted with deliberate indifference to the son's serious medical needs. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers were either aware, or should have been aware, because it was so obvious, of an unjustifiably high risk to the son's health; they did nothing to seek medical attention; and they even misstated the severity of the son's condition to those who could have sought help. Accordingly, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissal of the deliberate indifference claims against the officers and remanded for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Golden Spread Electric Cooperative v. Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions

Docket: 19-10238
Opinion Date: April 8, 2020
Judge: Jacques Loeb Wiener, Jr.
Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Golden Spread and Westport's tort claims against Emerson. The claims arose after Emerson installed a new control system for Golden Spread and the control system's software had been programmed incorrectly. The court held that the economic loss rule, which prevents recovery in tort for purely economic damage unaccompanied by injury to persons or property, is applicable in this case. The court reasoned that the Texas Supreme Court would conclude that the risk suffered here is better addressed in contract than in tort. In this case, the parties are sophisticated, commercial actors that actually did negotiate over the allocation of risk. Furthermore, the parties themselves were in the best position to understand and allocate the risks of their transaction ahead of time to resolve any ambiguities in the application of that rule to their circumstances.

Read Opinion

Louisiana v. King

Docket: 2019-KK-01332
Opinion Date: April 3, 2020
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Officers placed defendant Tre King in handcuffs during a traffic stop after they smelled marijuana in the vehicle and determined that he had outstanding warrants for his arrest. They advised him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436. Defendant indicated that he understood his rights. A search of the vehicle revealed marijuana in the passenger side door and a gun beneath a jacket. Defendant claimed that the marijuana, jacket, and gun all belonged to him. Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm by a person convicted of certain felonies, and illegal carrying of a weapon while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance. After initially denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statements, the district court ultimately granted defendant’s motion to exclude his statements from trial. The State sought supervisory review from the court of appeal, which denied writs because it found, consistent with prior rulings in that circuit, that the Miranda warning was deficient because it fit not advise defendant of the temporal aspects of his right to an attorney (i.e., that he had a right to an attorney both before and during any questioning). The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review in this case to determine whether the warning that “you have the right to an attorney, and if you can’t afford one, one will be appointed to you,” without further qualification, was a sufficient advisement of the right to counsel under Miranda. The Court determined that a general advisement like that given in this case was sufficient, and that a statement need not be suppressed because of the failure to qualify the warning with an additional advisement that the right to counsel exists both before and during questioning. Accordingly, the Court reversed the rulings of the lower courts, denied defendant's motion to exclude his statements, and remanded for the district court for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

Terrebonne Parish enacts a curfew starting tonight


www.houmatimes.com/news/terrebonne-parish-enacts-a-curfew-starting-tonight/