Oysters to Fight Erosion and Help Preserve Southern Louisiana History www.insidescience.org/news/oysters-fight-erosion-and-help-preserve-southern-louisiana-history
0 Comments
Louisiana voters to decide in Nov. on fantasy sports gaming www.wwltv.com/article/sports/louisiana-voters-to-decide-in-nov-on-fantasy-sports-gaming/289-559125239 US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Rob Docket: 17-50115 Opinion Date: May 21, 2018 Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson Areas of Law: Banking, Real Estate & Property Law The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Wilmington Trust, holding that the lender was not entitled to foreclosure because it failed to prove that it provided adequate notice of intent to accelerate. The court held that Texas common law imposes notice requirements before acceleration that is clear and unequivocal. In this case, Wilmington Trust failed to meet its burden to show clear and unequivocal notice of intent to accelerate prior to filing suit. Read Opinion Kinard v. Dish Network Corp. Docket: 17-10282 Opinion Date: May 18, 2018 Judge: Leslie Southwick Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law Plaintiff, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, filed suit against DISH, seeking an injunction against unilateral changes to employee wages during collective bargaining. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of an injunction in part, holding that the district court did not err in recognizing the nearly 25 percent disparity between union wages and non-union wages; such a basis provided sufficient factual support to survive an abuse of discretion standard of review; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act where exceptional circumstances were present. Finally, the court did not evaluate the district court's failure to issue a cease and desist order against other future unilateral changes by DISH. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Bennett v. Hartford Insurance Company of the West Docket: 17-30311 Opinion Date: May 18, 2018 Judge: Carl E. Stewart Areas of Law: Insurance Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Axis and grant of Axis's motion to strike an affidavit submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment as untimely. The court held that this case presented no unusual or exceptional circumstances and the district court did not abuse is discretion in striking the affidavit where Hartford did not not seek modification of the scheduling order so that it may apprise the district court of its intent to offer another witness's testimony so as to give Axis an opportunity to depose the witness, nor did Hartford provide any valid justification for its failure to secure the affidavit before all discovery deadlines had passed. The court held that the policy unambiguously provided coverage in this case because the Hartford policy provided liability coverage for any auto and because the CRB Endorsement did not conflict with the liability coverage provision of the policy. Finally, the court declined to take judicial notice of Dana Transport's "admission." Read Opinion Voting Rights Bill for Some Louisiana Felons Wins Passage www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2018-05-17/voting-rights-bill-for-louisiana-ex-felons-wins-passage US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Montalvo Davila Docket: 16-20081 Opinion Date: May 16, 2018 Judge: James Earl Graves, Jr. Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit granted defendant's motions to recall the mandate and for leave to file an out-of-time petition for panel rehearing in light of United States v. Herrold, 883 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc). The court held that recalling the mandate was appropriate because Herrold has rendered the court's previous decision affirming defendant's sentence demonstrably wrong; failure to recall the mandate would produce an unwarranted disparity between him and similarly situated defendants in other cases; and defendant demonstrated diligence in asserting his claim. The court also granted the public defender's motion to be reappointed as defendant's counsel on appeal. Read Opinion Shoultz Law Firm - Louisiana Decisions - US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - from Justia5/16/2018 US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Sierra Equipment, Inc. v. Lexington Insurance Co. Docket: 17-10076 Opinion Date: May 15, 2018 Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod Areas of Law: Contracts, Immigration Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an action arising from a property insurance policy that Lexington issued to LWL to insure construction equipment that LWL leased from Sierra. The court held that the equitable lien doctrine did not apply to Sierra, who was not a party to the insurance policy, and Sierra did not have standing to sue Lexington. In this case, the agreement between Sierra and LWL did not require that LWL obtain insurance with a loss payable clause to Sierra, and the Lexington policy did not contain such a clause. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Keyes v. Gunn Docket: 17-60097 Opinion Date: May 11, 2018 Judge: E. Grady Jolly Areas of Law: Election Law Five voters filed suit against defendants, alleging that they had been disqualified in an election in violation of their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit held that this appeal presented a state election contest for a legislative seat and thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. Read Opinion US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Hebert v. Rogers Docket: 17-30191 Opinion Date: May 10, 2018 Judge: Edith Brown Clement Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of the first degree murder of her young children. The court held that petitioner did not meet her burden to prove that the State used its peremptory strikes with the intent to discriminate against women and thus she failed to show that her attorney's representation was prejudicial when he did not object to the State's use of its peremptory strikes. The court also held that petitioner failed to prove that she was insane by a preponderance of the evidence and thus the state court's decision was not an objectively unreasonable application of law. Read Opinion Appeals court won't rehear Louisiana felon voting rights case www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_464159d4-53a8-11e8-ab71-63d718ac24b8.html US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions City of El Cenizo v. Texas Docket: 17-50762 Opinion Date: May 8, 2018 Judge: Edith Hollan Jones Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Immigration Law The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion in order to eliminate reference to United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), given that decision's abrogation by the Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018). The court upheld Senate Bill 4 (SB4), a Texas law that forbids "sanctuary city" policies throughout the state, and held that SB4's provisions, with one exception, did not violate the Constitution. The court held that none of SB4's provisions conflict with federal law where the assistance-cooperation, the status-inquiry, and the information-sharing provisions were not conflict preempted. The court affirmed the district court's injunction against enforcement of Section 752.053(a)(1) only as it prohibits elected officials from "endors[ing] a policy under which the entity or department prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws." The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish that every seizure authorized by the ICE-detainer mandate violated the Fourth Amendment; the "materially limits" phrase had a clear core and was not void for vagueness; and plaintiffs' "commandeering" argument failed. Accordingly, the court vacated in large part the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to dismiss the vacated provisions. Read Opinion Terrebonne minority judgeship bill fails in House committee. Next step federal court www.houmatimes.com/news/terrebonne-minority-judgeship-bill-fails-in-house-committee-next-step/article_57f627b0-4893-11e8-8111-8b7bbe1efdcf.html US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions United States v. Fillmore Docket: 16-51427 Opinion Date: May 4, 2018 Judge: Leslie H. Southwick Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit vacated in part and remanded in part defendant's 51 month sentence for conspiracy to maintain a chop shop. The court held that defendant was not "in the business" of receiving and selling stolen property and thus the district court erroneously applied a two level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2B6.1(b)(2). The court affirmed the district court's application of a two level enhancement for a leadership role under USSG 3B1.1(c). The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the sentencing court's refusal to grant a downward departure under USSG 5H1.11 based on defendant's prior military service where the record did not suggest the district court based its decision on an erroneous belief that it lacked the authority to depart. Accordingly, the court dismissed as to this issue. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Benson v. Tyson Foods, Inc. Docket: 17-40161 Opinion Date: May 1, 2018 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law Plaintiff appealed from a jury verdict in favor of Tyson for disability claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial where the jury had ample evidence that plaintiff was not disabled. The court also held that, in light of Haeberle v. Texas International Airlines, 739 F.2d 1019, 1022 (5th Cir. 1984), the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's counsel's request to interview the jurors. In this case, plaintiff's First Amendment claim was foreclosed by Haeberle. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. Read Opinion DC Comics is developing 'Swamp Thing,' set in Houma, as a TV series www.nola.com/tv/index.ssf/2018/05/swamp_thing_tv_series_dc_comcis_05032018.html Louisiana House votes to allow more guns at schools, universities www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/05/louisiana_house_guns_schools.html Louisiana v. Jackson Docket: 2016-KP-1100 Opinion Date: May 1, 2018 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Defendant Leroy Jackson was found guilty of armed robbery and two counts of attempted armed robbery based solely on his identification by the two victims, Adrian Maldonado and Wilson Vargas, and an eyewitness to the crimes, Anibal Maldonado. The offenses were committed in 2009, by three armed men. Two of the men wore masks. Defendant was identified as the unmasked man after the witnesses collaborated with an officer to make a computerized composite of him. A detective proposed placing defendant in a photographic lineup based on the composite. The three witnesses then each identified defendant from a photographic lineup. The two victims expressed uncertainty, however, in their identifications to a defense investigator. After defendant was found guilty by the jury, the district court sentenced him to 50 years imprisonment at hard labor as a second-felony offender for armed robbery, and two terms of 24 years imprisonment at hard labor for attempted armed robbery, with the sentences to run concurrently and without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, however, the district court granted defendant a new trial. In ruling, the district court emphasized the problematic nature of cross-racial identifications, and the strong indications here that the identifications were unreliable. The court of appeal reversed. Defendant appealed, arguing he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel was provided with information that undermined the witness identifications, in a case that rested entirely on the witness identifications, but did not use it. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the district court’s ruling that granted defendant a new trial. Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions Succession of Charles George Harlan Docket: 2017-C-1132 Opinion Date: May 1, 2018 Judge: Jefferson D. Hughes, III Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Trusts & Estates The issue in this case was whether a revocation clause, contained within a notarial testament that was found to be void for failure to include an attestation clause, could be valid as an authentic act and thereby revoke two prior testaments, resulting in an intestate succession. Charles Harlan died on November 26, 2015, survived by his second wife, Xiaoping Harlan, and his four adult children from his first marriage. The children filed a petition in the district court, seeking to have the decedent’s March 9, 2000 testament filed and executed and to have Hansel Harlan named as executor of the succession; Xiaoping filed a petition to nullify the probated March 9, 2000 testament, to have Hansel removed as executor, and to have herself appointed as administratrix of the succession. Xiaoping further sought to file a purported notarial testament, executed on June 5, 2012 and containing a revocation of all prior testaments, along with a March 1, 2014 codicil. The district court found no valid revocation. The appellate court ruled that the invalid testament nevertheless met the requirements of La. C.C. art. 1833 so as to qualify as an authentic act, capable of revoking prior testaments pursuant to La. C.C. art. 1607(2). The Louisiana Supreme Court concluded the appellate court erred in reversing those parts of the February 24, 2016 and the June 6, 2016 district court judgments, which found that the invalid 2012 testament did not contain a valid authentic act that revoked the March 9, 2000 and the May 24, 2007 testaments, and the appellate court erred in rendering judgments holding that the March 9, 2000 and the May 24, 2007 testaments were revoked by the absolutely null 2012 testament. Read Opinion Effort to end florist licensing in Louisiana nipped in the bud with Senate panel's rejection www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_4058ed8e-4d59-11e8-aced-a3f61ef63b1c.html Here's where Louisiana's medical marijuana pharmacies will locate www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2018/05/heres_where_louisianas_9_medic.html |
Louisiana Law BlogLouisiana Law, News, Issues and Comments from Attorneys at the Shoultz Law Firm Archives
October 2024
Categories |