Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions
Havard v. JeanLouis, et al.

Docket: 2021-C-00810
Opinion Date: June 29, 2022
Judge: Griffin
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Contracts, Insurance Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review in this case to determine whether a stamped signature on an uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) coverage rejection form, affixed by the administrative assistant of the corporate insured’s owner and president, complied with the statutory requirement that the UM form be signed by the named insured or his legal representative. Because the stamped signature was affixed on behalf of the legal representative and not by the legal representative himself, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal that the lack of prior written authorization to the administrative assistant rendered the UM form invalid.

Read Opinion

Anthony v. Louisiana


Issues: (1) Whether the presumption of innocence, the right to confrontation and the right to a fair trial permit a court to allow the grand jury prosecutor to take the stand and offer testimony regarding the prosecutor’s belief about the credibility of the alleged victims, the guilt of the defendant and the strength of the state’s evidence; (2) whether the admission of such prosecutorial testimony constitutes structural error or, instead, is subject to harmless error review; and (3) whether a reviewing court’s conclusion that the evidence at trial supports the defendant’s convictions even excluding the grand jury prosecutor’s testimony meets the state’s burden of proving harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.



www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/anthony-v-louisiana/

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Cargill v. Garland

Docket: 20-51016
Opinion Date: June 23, 2022
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

On December 14, 2021, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in this case, upholding the district court's rejection of Plaintiff's challenge to an ATF rule determining that bump stocks are "machineguns" for purposes of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the federal statutory bar on the possession or sale of new machine guns.

However, after a majority of the eligible circuit judges voted in favor of hearing the case en banc, the court vacated its prior opinion so the entire court could hear the case.

Read Opinion

Salazar v. Molina

Docket: 20-40334
Opinion Date: June 16, 2022
Judge: Andrew S. Oldham
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Personal Injury

Plaintiff led police on a high-speed chase through a residential neighborhood. Once Plaintiff exited his vehicle, Defendant sheriff's deputy tased Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the deputy, claiming he violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment Rights. The District Court denied the deputy's claim of qualified immunity, finding there were material factual disputes as to whether a reasonable officer would have viewed Plaintiff as an immediate threat; whether Plaintiff's apparent surrender was a ploy to evade arrest; and whether Plaintiff was tased once or twice.

The Fifth Circuit reversed. After considering the threat posed by Plaintiff in fleeing law enforcement as well as the force used by the deputy, the court determined that the deputy did not violate Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, Plaintiff was unable to overcome the bar of qualified immunity.

Read Opinion

Louisiana changed its law on paying college athletes. Here's what it means for LSU.


www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/sports/lsu/article_5b2a80ec-edcc-11ec-ba13-230c04311706.html

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Franklin v. Regions Bank

Docket: 21-30324
Opinion Date: June 14, 2022
Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan
Areas of Law: Contracts

Plaintiffs, two sisters, and a family friend own a large farm in north Louisiana. The farm sits atop the storied Haynesville Shale. A bank’s landman who was managing the sisters’ interests extended a mineral lease for only a tenth of the farm. The landman had misread the extension, which covered the whole farm. Within months, advances in drilling technology would open up the Haynesville Shale. Lease bonuses soared. But the faulty extension clouded the sisters’ farm.
 
Plaintiffs sued the bank for breach of contract. The district court found the landman violated the standards of his profession by extending the entire lease. But the court ruled this was a “mistake in judgment” under the bank’s contract with the sisters, shielding the bank from liability. It also ruled the mistake was not gross fault, which a Louisiana contract cannot exculpate.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Then court explained that the landman did not make a mistake in judgment, but a mistake pure and simple. He misread the extension. The contract’s exculpatory clause does not cover this kind of error, and so the court reversed the dismissal of the sisters’ claims. The court remanded as to damages. The extension stuck the sisters with a lower royalty rate than they would have gotten otherwise. But the parties’ experts disagree over whether the differing rates would make any economic difference. The district court did not resolve this technical, fact-bound question.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Robinson v. Ardoin

Docket: 22-30333
Opinion Date: June 12, 2022
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

Before the Fifth Circuit were three emergency motions to stay, pending appeal, and an order of the district court that requires the Louisiana Legislature to enact a new congressional map with a second black-majority district. The Fifth Circuit concluded that though Plaintiffs’ arguments and the district court’s analysis are not without weaknesses, Defendants have not met their burden of making a “strong showing” of likely success on the merits. The court concluded that the cautionary principle from Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), prevents the ordered remedy from taking effect. Thus, the court vacated the administrative stay and denied the motion for stay pending appeal. The court explained that while Defendants urged the court to stay the district court’s order to give the Louisiana Legislature more time to enact a remedial plan, they have not explained why they cannot enact a new plan in the time that the district court allotted.

Read Opinion

Louisiana: Series of Marijuana Law Reform Bills Advanced to Governor’s Desk

norml.org/blog/2022/06/07/louisiana-series-of-marijuana-law-reform-bills-advanced-to-governors-desk/

USA v. Mearis

Docket: 21-20047
Opinion Date: June 8, 2022
Judge: Patrick E. Higginbotham
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of five counts of sex trafficking. He appealed his conviction, arguing that his right to a speedy trial was violated, that there is insufficient evidence to support one count of his conviction, and that the prosecutor made an improper remark in her closing argument.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court explained that under the Speedy Trial Act the federal government must file an information or indictment against the defendant “within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges” otherwise the charges must be dismissed. Defendant argues that the Speedy Trial Act clock must include his detention by state authorities as the state charges were a “ruse” to avoid its reach in that State and federal authorities cannot “collude” to detain a defendant “solely for the purpose of bypassing the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act.” Here, the court held that the state had a legitimate and independent reason to detain Defendant and was not holding him primarily as a ruse for the federal government’s eventual arrest, Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act. Further, Defendant was unable to show that the length of the delay was prejudicial.

Read Opinion

Judge blocks Louisiana Congress map


www.politico.com/news/2022/06/06/judge-blocks-louisiana-congress-map-00037651

Legislature votes to allow adopted people access to original birth certificates

www.houmatimes.com/news/legislature-votes-to-allow-adopted-people-access-to-original-birth-certificates/

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
George v. SI Grp, et al

Docket: 20-40427
Opinion Date: June 3, 2022
Judge: E. Grady Jolly
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury, Products Liability

Plaintiff was severely burned when the landing gear on a tanker-trailer detached from its tractor and sank into a gravel surface, causing the tanker-trailer to tip over and spill scalding water on him. Plaintiff brought a premises liability claim against the owner of the property and product liability claims against the owner of the tanker-trailer and three related companies. The district court dismissed his product liability claims on the pleadings and his premises liability claim on summary judgment.

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not apply the proper standard for evaluating the plausibility of George’s pleadings under Federal R. of Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). Further, the court held that the district court erroneously concluded that Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code governed Plaintiff's premises liability claim. Thus the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Read Opinion