Louisiana attorney general wants to take over opioid lawsuit www.kansas.com/news/business/article181874391.html
0 Comments
Supreme Court rejects Louisiana dirt farmer's appeal www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/30/supreme-court-rejects-louisiana-dirt-farmers-appeal.html US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Jauch v. Choctaw County Docket: 16-60690 Opinion Date: October 24, 2017 Judge: Thomas Morrow Reavley Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law A pre-trial detainee denied access to the judicial system for a prolonged period has been denied basic procedural due process. In this case, plaintiff was indicted by a grand jury, arrested, and put in jail where she waited for 96 days to be brought before a judge and was effectively denied bail. The Fifth Circuit held that this excessive detention deprived plaintiff of liberty without legal or due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Louisiana v. Noel Docket: 2016-K-0043 Opinion Date: October 18, 2017 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law In 2011, a Lafayette police officer investigating a possible car burglary, stopped defendant Calvin Noel, III, who was walking down the middle of the road. As the officer patted him down, defendant told him that he “had a gun in his hip.” The officer determined from his computerized database system that defendant had prior felony convictions so he confiscated the gun and arrested him for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant was charged by bill of information with possession of a firearm by a person convicted of certain felonies, to which he pleaded not guilty. Pursuant to defendant’s pretrial motion, a sanity commission was appointed to determine his competency to proceed as well as offer an opinion as to his sanity at the time of the offense. The two members of the sanity commission agreed that defendant was competent despite his chronic paranoid schizophrenia. They noted his history of repeated psychiatric hospitalizations and his paranoia, grandiosity, and impulsivity. They also noted his tattoos (which included “insane” on his right hand and “crazy” on the left). The trial court found defendant competent to proceed. A jury would ultimately find defendant guilty as charged. Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years in prison at hard labor without parole, and fined him $2,500. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, finding defendant produced "an indicia of insanity" and the district court erred in finding good cause was not shown because defendant was engaging in a dilatory tactic because he changed his plea (from "not guilty" to "not guilty by reason of insanity"). Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal, vacated the conviction and sentence, and remanded for a new trial. Warren v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. Docket: 2016-C-1647 Opinion Date: October 18, 2017 Judge: Greg G. Guidry Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Insurance Law, Personal Injury Ron Warren, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Derek Hebert, filed a petition for damages seeking to recover for the wrongful death of his son in a recreational boating accident under general maritime law and products liability. A jury found the defendant, Teleflex, Inc. liable under the plaintiff’s failure to warn theory of the case and awarded compensatory damages of $125,000 and punitive damages of $23,000,000. The court of appeal affirmed. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari mainly to review whether the trial court properly granted the plaintiff a new trial and whether the award of punitive damages was excessive and resulted in a violation of the defendant’s right to constitutional due process. After reviewing the record and the applicable law in this case, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the trial court’s rulings; however, the Court did find the award of punitive damages was excessive and resulted in a violation of the defendant’s right to constitutional due process. Louisiana v. Frank Docket: 2016-K-1160 Opinion Date: October 18, 2017 Judge: Marcus R. Clark Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law The State charged defendant Skylar Frank, a former Oakdale police officer, with felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile, malfeasance in office, and obstruction of justice. The issue this case presented for review was whether the court of appeal erred in applying Louisiana’s jurisprudential “same evidence” test to find that defendant’s conviction for attempted felony carnal knowledge had to be set aside in light of his conviction for malfeasance in office, because it violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. Finding that no double jeopardy violation occurred, the Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated defendant’s conviction and sentence for attempted felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile. Furthermore, the Court found no significant difference between U.S. Const. Amend. V and La. Const. art. I, section 15 supporting the notion that Louisiana’s constitution afforded greater protection against double jeopardy than the federal constitution or required Louisiana courts to apply two distinct tests (one federal and one state) to analyze double jeopardy claims. Therefore, Louisiana courts are bound only to apply the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), to protect against double jeopardy and can dispense with Louisiana’s separate “same evidence” test. Louisiana v. Julien Docket: 2017-KK-0557 Opinion Date: October 18, 2017 Judge: Bernette J. Johnson Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law The underlying issue in this case concerns centered on the reasonableness of a warrantless search of a probationer’s residence conducted by a multi-agency law enforcement task force. Two officers from the New Orleans District of the Louisiana Department of Probation and Parole conducted a “compliance check” at defendant Avery Julien’s home in conjunction with the New Orleans Police Department and the U.S. Marshals Gulf Coast Criminal Fugitive Task Force. A search of the residence netted ammunition and two guns, which were found to have been stolen. Specifically, the issue presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court’s review was whether the search violated Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 895(A)(13)(a). After review of the law and record, and considering the arguments of the parties, the Supreme Court held the warrantless search of defendant’s residence violated the provisions of Article 895(A)(13)(a) because the search was not conducted by the probation officer assigned to him. Furthermore, the Court found violation of this statute constituted an unconstitutional search under Louisiana Constitution Article I, section 5, requiring exclusion of the evidence pursuant to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 703(C). Thus, the Court affirmed the ruling of the district court which granted defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions Louisiana v. Brignac Docket: 2017-KK-0448 Opinion Date: October 18, 2017 Judge: Bernette J. Johnson Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law The underlying issue in this case concerned the reasonableness of a warrantless search of a probationer’s residence by multi-agency state and federal law enforcement personnel. Two officers from the New Orleans District of Probation and Parole were conducting a “residence check” because the department received information from another law enforcement agency that defendant Kayla Brignac may have been involved in the sale of narcotics. During the search, officer found Brignac in a bedroom with what appeared to be a burned marijuana cigarette in plain view. A search of the remainder of the residence netted miscellaneous pills and drug paraphernalia. Specifically, the issue this case presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court’s review was whether the search violated Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 895(A)(13)(a). After review of the law and record, and considering the arguments of the parties, the Supreme Court held the warrantless search of defendant’s residence violated the provisions of Article 895(A)(13)(a) because the search was not conducted by the probation officer assigned to her. Furthermore, the Court found that violation of this statute constituted an unconstitutional search under Louisiana Constitution Article I, section5, requiring exclusion of the evidence pursuant to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 703(C). Thus, the Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the ruling of the district court which granted defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. United States v. Bennett Docket: 17-60038 Opinion Date: October 16, 2017 Judge: Higginbotham Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, ten counts of distributing or dispensing a controlled substance, and three counts of bankruptcy fraud. The court held that the district court did not err by rejecting defendant's proposed jury instructions because they were either substantively incorrect or irrelevant; even assuming that the prosecutor impermissibly used defendant's husband's pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence, there was no error because the husband does not speak for defendant; the court rejected defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct; the government did not improperly amend its indictment; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. Seven injured, one missing after oil rig blast on Lake Pontchartrain www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/16/seven-injured-one-missing-after-oil-rig-blast-on-louisiana-lake/?utm_term=.6c078e820750 NFLPA v. NFL Docket: 17-40936 Opinion Date: October 13, 2017 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Civil Procedure, Entertainment & Sports Law The NFLPA filed a complaint on behalf of Ezekiel Elliott, a running back for the Dallas Cowboys, seeking a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of a forthcoming six game suspension by the NFL and NFL Management Council. The Commissioner of the NFL determined that domestic violence allegations were substantiated and that Elliott should be suspended for six games. An arbitrator issued a decision upholding the suspension on the same day the district court held a preliminary injunction hearing. The district court then enjoined the NFL from enforcing the suspension. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's preliminary injunction, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it issued the preliminary injunction. In this case, when the NFLPA filed the complaint, the arbitrator had not yet issued his decision, and jurisdiction depends on the facts as they exist when the complaint was filed. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions United States v. Taylor Docket: 16-11384 Opinion Date: October 12, 2017 Judge: Edith Brown Clement Areas of Law: Criminal Law The Fifth Circuit held that defendant's claim that his sentence enhancement was no longer valid under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), was constitutionally based and warranted relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. As a preliminary matter, the government conceded that defendant's injury to a child conviction no longer counted as an ACCA predicate after Johnson, and that, if defendant's claim was constitutionally based, then his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. In this case, the district court did not specify under which clause of the ACCA it was sentencing defendant. Texas's injury to a child offense was broader than the ACCA's elements clause, and the injury to a child conviction was necessary to sustain defendant's sentence enhancement because it was one of the three required predicate offenses. The court reasoned that this was sufficient to show that section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) may no longer authorize defendant's sentence as that statute stands after Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015). The court vacated the ACCA enhancement and ordered defendant's immediate release. Medical marijuana licenses, budget discord and a 'genius grant': Louisiana politics today (Oct. 12) www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/louisiana_politics_oct_12.html US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Ramirez v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co. Docket: 16-11660 Opinion Date: October 6, 2017 Judge: Priscilla R. Owen Areas of Law: Insurance Law The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for United in plaintiff's action seeking benefits under an accidental death and dismemberment and life insurance policy provided by his employer. The court held that plaintiff's eye infection was not an "Accident" within the meaning of the policy. Furthermore, plaintiff's loss of sight from a fungal infection was not "independent of Sickness," and was not covered by the policy. The court reasoned that the policy's extension of coverage did not turn on whether the death or loss was caused by a condition that arose after the inception of the policy. Rather, the nature and cause of the loss determine whether there was coverage. In this case, the contra proferentem rule did not apply because the policy terms were not unambiguous and the court need not construe the policy against United. United States v. McMahan Docket: 16-10255 Opinion Date: October 5, 2017 Judge: Edward C. Prado Areas of Law: Criminal Law Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) has no notice and hearing requirement. In this case, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the Government's Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of defendant's sentence and rejected defendant's contention that he was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard in his Rule 35(b) proceeding prior to the district court's order. The court declined to apply the reasoning in United States v. Gangi, 45 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1995), and concluded that the district court did not err by ruling on the Rule 35(b) motion before defendant responded. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions Dick v. Colorado Housing Enterprises, LLC Docket: 17-10357 Opinion Date: October 4, 2017 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Banking, Real Estate & Property Law The Fifth Circuit dismissed this interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop a foreclosure. The court applied In Matter of Sullivan Cent. Plaza, I, Ltd., and held that the appeal was moot because the subject property was sold at a foreclosure sale. The court rejected plaintiff's argument that the instant appeal was not moot simply because defendants purchased the foreclosed property and were before the court on appeal. The court reasoned that it could not enjoin that which had already taken place. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions United States v. Oti Docket: 16-10386 Opinion Date: October 3, 2017 Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod Areas of Law: Criminal Law Defendants Theodore Okechuku, Elechi Oti, Emmanuel Iwuoha, and Kevin Rutledge were convicted of conspiring to unlawfully distribute hydrocodone outside the scope of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose as part of an alleged pill mill. Okechuku was also convicted of two additional firearm counts. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants and any errors that defendants alleged were either not errors or were harmless. LOUISIANA POLITICS & GOVERNMENT Inmates released, state business trips and Scalise: Louisiana politics today (Oct. 2) www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/louisiana_politics_oct_2.html |
Louisiana Law BlogLouisiana Law, News, Issues and Comments from Attorneys at the Shoultz Law Firm Archives
October 2024
Categories |