Beer Industry League of Louisiana v. City of New Orleans

Docket: 2018-CA-0280
Opinion Date: June 27, 2018
Judge: Greg G. Guidry
Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law

In this case, the issue presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court’s review centered on whether a City of New Orleans ordinance levying a gallonage tax based on volume upon dealers who handle high alcoholic content beverages was a valid exercise of its authority to levy and collect occupational license taxes within the meaning of La. Const. Art. VI, sec. 28. The trial court declared the ordinance unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found the portion of the ordinance at issue was not an unconstitutional exercise of the City’s taxing authority. Thus, the Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

Burchfield v. Wright

Docket: 2017-C-1488
Opinion Date: June 27, 2018
Judge: Greg G. Guidry
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

The defendant surgeon ordered pre-operative tests including a chest x-ray and an electrocardiogram (“EKG”) before performing non-emergency gallbladder surgery on the plaintiff. However, defendant did not review the results of these tests prior to performing the surgery, but had he done so, the tests would have alerted him to potential issues with plaintiff’s heart necessitating the ordering of a cardiac consult prior to surgery. Although the surgery itself was successful and uneventful, some thirty or so hours after discharge, plaintiff suffered a heart attack and eventually had to undergo a heart transplant. Plaintiff and his wife brought suit against defendant alleging medical malpractice. The defendant surgeon settled, and the Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund (“PCF”) intervened. After a trial against the PCF, the jury declined to find plaintiffs had proven the surgeon’s failure to review the test results and to refer his patient to a cardiologist before performing the surgery had caused the patient to suffer the subsequent heart attack that ultimately necessitated a heart transplant. Instead, the jury found plaintiffs had proven the defendant’s breach of the standard of care had resulted in the loss of a less than even chance of a better outcome. The jury awarded plaintiffs lump sum general damages, which the trial court in its judgment made subject to the Medical Malpractice Act’s limitation on the total amount recoverable by plaintiffs, La. Rev. Stat. 40:1231.2. The court of appeal found legal error in what it deemed to be a “patently inconsistent” jury verdict in light of the verdict form, but it nonetheless found the jury’s determination that plaintiffs had proven a lost chance of a better outcome was clearly supported by the record. The court of appeal then awarded general damages (affirming the trial court’s award), but it also awarded special damages, including past medicals, future medicals, and lost wages, which it did not subject to the Medical Malpractice Act’s limitation on the total amount recoverable. The Louisiana Supreme Court found the court of appeal erred in its decision, reversed it, and reinstated the jury’s verdict, the award of lump sum general damages, and the trial court’s judgment.

Read Opinion

Louisiana v. Price

Docket: 2017-K-0520
Opinion Date: June 27, 2018
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was indicted with five counts of second degree kidnapping and three counts of second degree murder. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari review in this case to determine whether guilty of simple kidnapping was a responsive verdict to a charge of second degree kidnapping. Finding that it is not enumerated among the legislatively authorized responsive verdicts in La. C.Cr.P. art. 814, and further that it is not a lesser and included offense in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 815, the Supreme Court set aside defendant’s convictions for simple kidnapping, and remanded to the trial court to enter a post-verdict judgment of acquittal on these charges.

Read Opinion

Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions
In re: L.M.M., JR.

Docket: 2017-CJ-1988
Opinion Date: June 27, 2018
Judge: John L. Weimer
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law

The biological mother of a child placed under guardianship with the child’s paternal great-aunt filed a petition to terminate that guardianship and to regain custody of the child. Following a three-day trial, the district court terminated the guardianship and awarded joint custody of the child to the guardian and the biological mother, with the mother designated as the domiciliary custodian. On appeal, the court of appeal reversed the district court judgment, reinstated the guardianship, and remanded the case to the district court for purposes of establishing a visitation schedule for the mother. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to assess whether the correct legal standards were applied by the lower courts, and to review the correctness of the district court’s determination that the guardianship should be terminated. The Court held that the proper standard for determining whether an order of guardianship should be modified or terminated was statutorily prescribed by Article 724 of the Children’s Code, which, in this case, required proof by the movant/mother by “clear and convincing evidence” of “a substantial and material change in the circumstances of the guardian or child” because either “[c]ontinuation of the guardianship is so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification or termination of the relationship” or “the harm likely to be caused from a change in the guardianship is substantially outweighed by the advantages to the child of the modification.” Weighing the evidence in light of that evidentiary burden, the Court agreed with the court of appeal’s assessment that the district court erred in determining that the mother met her burden of proving the guardianship should be terminated. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal reinstating the guardianship order.

Read Opinion

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

Docket: 16-10289
Opinion Date: June 26, 2018
Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for charges related to his efforts in convincing about a hundred people to lend his companies millions of dollars. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the mail and wire fraud counts; there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for giving false testimony during a bankruptcy court proceeding; the district court's decision denying defendant's motion to suppress some prior statements under the Fifth Amendment was unreviewable because defendant neither testified nor proffered what he would have said; challenges to the admission of several summary charts denied; challenges to jury instructions as infirm were rejected; and there was no procedural error in defendant's sentence.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Archbold-Garrett v. New Orleans City

Docket: 17-30692
Opinion Date: June 22, 2018
Judge: Edith Hollan Jones
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

The city owned land and a townhome in New Orleans after 1998; its previous owner, Jett, neglected to pay his taxes. Notwithstanding its recorded ownership, the city instituted Code Enforcement proceedings against Jett in 2012. The Garretts purchased the property on October 2, 2015, and recorded the conveyance on October 14. They claim that the building was structurally sound. The city continued to pursue Jett. An administrative judgment was entered on October 30, ordering Jett to pay fines and warning that the building could be demolished. A lien was recorded on December 7. The Garretts were not named and received no notice. On January 15, 2016, their realtor noticed a sign advising upcoming demolition of the property. They contacted the city, which canceled the lien. E-mail exchanges indicated that the Garretts intended to resolve all code issues. On January 27, the city demolished the townhouse. Denying the Garretts' request for compensation, the city sent a bill for the demolition costs. They did not appeal but filed suit alleging denial of due process and just compensation. The district court dismissed the claim as jurisdictionally unripe because they failed to seek compensation in state court. The Fifth Circuit vacated, finding the due process claim, predicated on lack of notice and a hearing, ripe, given the uncertainty of remedies in a state court inverse condemnation suit. The court concluded that the other claims were ripe or would be best resolved in the same suit.

Read Opinion

​
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Valero Marketing & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun

Docket: 16-30194
Opinion Date: June 19, 2018
Judge: Higginbotham
Areas of Law: Admiralty & Maritime Law

The Fifth Circuit held that a bunker supplier, having entered into a contract with a bunker trader that later went bankrupt, was not entitled to assert a maritime lien against the vessel that physically received its fuel. The court held that the supplier could not show that it provided necessaries on the order of the owner or a person authorized by the owner. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the maritime lien.

Read Opinion

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

Docket: 17-40552
Opinion Date: June 18, 2018
Judge: Don R. Willett
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction even if he never exercised dominion or control over the marijuana. In this case, defendant associated with a criminal venture, ensured that his coconspirator possessed the marijuana in order to transport it across the border, purposefully participated in the venture, and sought by his actions to make the venture succeed.

Read Opinion

Busby v. Davis

Docket: 15-70008
Opinion Date: June 13, 2018
Judge: Priscilla Richman Owen
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was sentenced to death for the murder of a seventy-year old woman. The court held that petitioner was not intellectually disabled and not ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia; he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal and, even if counsel was deficient, petitioner could not establish prejudice; and his trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to conduct an adequate sentencing investigation or by failing to present an adequate mitigation case during the penalty phase of trial.

Read Opinion

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

Dockets: 17-20158, 17-20159
Opinion Date: June 12, 2018
Judge: Carolyn Dineen King
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for charges stemming from his operation of a pill mill. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of distributing controlled substances, money laundering, and mail fraud; there was no plain error, whether by lack of evidence or defects in the indictment, with respect to any of defendant's convictions; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges; and assuming without deciding that defendant's rights were violated under the Confrontation Clause, any error was harmless.

Read Opinion

​
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Rountree v. Dyson

Docket: 17-40443
Opinion Date: June 11, 2018
Judge: Jerry Edwin Smith
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 and related state-law claims against the city and the police department after the police chief revoked plaintiff's city-issued towing permit. The revocation was based on a complaint by a competing tow company that plaintiff's state-issued licenses had lapsed. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion when it considered the city's motion before dismissing the amended complaint; plaintiff's class-of-one equal protection claim was properly dismissed where he was not treated differently than others similarly situated; and the false arrest claim was properly dismissed because plaintiff did not obey an officer's apparently lawful order to leave the site of a towed car and the officer was not objectively unreasonable in believing that he had probable cause to arrest plaintiff.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Gorman v. State of Mississippi

Docket: 17-60515
Opinion Date: June 7, 2018
Judge: James C. Ho
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Personal Injury

During a preliminary safety briefing before a firearms training exercise hosted by the Mississippi Gaming Commission, instructor and former Commission Special Agent Sharp forgot to replace his real firearm with a “dummy” firearm. Sharp accidentally discharged his real firearm against fellow instructor and Mississippi Gaming Commission Special Agent Gorman. Gorman subsequently died from the gunshot wound. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Sharp’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. To defeat qualified immunity in a Fourth Amendment claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate both a bona fide Fourth Amendment violation and that the violation was clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct. Under established Supreme Court precedent, a Fourth Amendment seizure does not occur whenever there is a governmentally caused termination of an individual’s freedom of movement but only when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied. "There is no question about the fundamental interest in a person’s own life, but it does not follow that a negligent taking of life is a constitutional deprivation." The shooting of Gorman, as tragic as it was, was not “willful[ly]” performed by Sharp.”

Read Opinion

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

Docket: 17-10597
Opinion Date: June 5, 2018
Judge: Jerry Edwin Smith
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in treating defendant's possession offense as a prior conviction rather than as relevant conduct. In this case, the marijuana was not linked to the conspiracy to distribute and thus it was not clear error to consider the offense as a prior conviction.

Read Opinion

​
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Delek Refining, Limited v. Local 202

Docket: 17-40593
Opinion Date: June 1, 2018
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Contracts

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Delek's challenge to an arbitrator's award in an action alleging that the company violated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which required that employees get first crack at new work unless certain exceptions apply. The court held that the arbitrator's exercise of his discretion did not conflict with the CBA, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Delek's challenge was without justification and subject to a fee award.

Read Opinion

​Louisiana students caught hazing on college campuses could now face jail time

www.knoe.com/content/news/Louisiana-students-caught-hazing-on-college-campuses-could-now-face-jail-time--484246981.html