Louisiana Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court Report has moved

Steve Covell — 2004-04-29T21:16:21Z

The Supreme Court Report is now consolidated with the Louisiana Legislature Report. Past posts will be left here for archive purposes, but all new information about the Louisiana Supreme Court can now be found at:

www.la-legal.com/annotated

Please change your bookmarks to this new address.

Supreme Ct. Report to consolidate

Steve Covell — 2004-03-22T22:00:04Z

Coming soon: The Supreme Court Report, the Legislature Report, and La-Legal Annotated will soon be consolidating into one feature. The court, legislative and legal news portions will be in separate categories so the viewer can choose whatever topic is most interesting.

September begins with 5 disbarment orders

Steve Covell — 2003-09-09T22:41:14Z

In an unusual case, the attorney was given an American Express credit card by his client to use for litigation expenses and fees. In a period of several months, the attorney ran up $38,894.13 in purely personal charges. The attorney, after his client questioned the expenses, attempted to refund $21,000 by checks from his trust account --which bounced. There were also many other complaints from other clients. In Re Winthrop G. Gardner

In another case, the attorney had been suspended for a year and put on probation. He broke the terms of his probation and then practiced law while under suspension. In several cases, the attorney accepted fees and simply did not show up in court. In Re Endusha Juakali

In yet another case, an attorney who had already been disbarred for accepting fees and not doing any work, was charged with practicing law without a license when he accepted fees and did no work. In Re Raphael P. Porrier

In case number four, the attorney had six charges filed during the time she was already under suspension for disciplinary problems. In all cases, the attorney abandoned the practice of law during the representation but took no action to protect the interests of her client. In Re Amy E. Watley

Finally, an attorney with a history of several disciplinary actions practiced law while suspended. His client paid him a fee to handle a criminal matter. The attorney did not inform his client he was under interim suspension nor did he refund the unearned portion of her fee. The attorney then failed to respond to the formal charges brought against him. In Re Walter J. Crittenden

Right to jury trial waived by waiting over 15 days

Steve Covell — 2003-08-27T19:46:40Z

In a dissent to the majority's denial of writs, Justice Calogero points out that the right to allow a waiver of trial by jury is discretionary with the trial judge if made more than fifteen days after arraignment. The dissent believes the right to trial by jury exists until trial commences. State v. Bush

Subscription list hacked

Steve Covell — 2003-08-26T21:58:28Z

The Louisiana Supreme Court Report subscription list was deleted by a hacker last week. Since we could only backup part of the list, many were lost.

You can tell if your name is on the subscription list by clicking on "Subscribe" on our Supreme Court Report main screen. If you are subscribed, clicking the "Subscribe" button will tell you. If you are not subscribed, you will be given the opportunity to re-subscribe.

Rideau stay denied

Steve Covell — 2003-08-26T21:54:30Z

There are still no written opinions from the Supreme Court since our last posting.

Of interest is the denial without comment of the stay and motions filed in STATE OF LOUISIANA v. WILBERT RIDEAU. The case number is 2003-OK-2347.

More decisions released without written reasons

Steve Covell — 2003-08-02T21:14:35Z

On Friday, the Supreme Court released several decisions without comment. Four writ applications were denied, two attorneys were granted disability inactive status, two applications were considered not timely filed, and in State v. Selva, a stay order was granted.

July is slow, no written decisions

Steve Covell — 2003-07-27T20:51:00Z

Only a few sporadic releases were made in July, an historically slow month for the Louisiana Supreme Court.

In two cases, applicants were given special permission to take the bar exam, and in another case a stay was granted. Other than the denial of writs without written reasons, nothing much has been going on.

Action for tainted blood limited by prescriptive period [tort]

Steve Covell — 2003-07-03T17:28:00Z

Plaintiff contracts hepatitis from blood transfusion performed in 1979. Lower courts rule that strict liability for providing contaminated blood is not subject to prescriptive period. Action: reversed, but plaintiff given leave to amend to challenge constitutionality of law. Two dissents. David v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital

Sheriff not liable in wrongful death action [tort]

Steve Covell — 2003-07-03T17:18:37Z

Numerous calls to different state and local police agencies for assistance (escort) by a truck driver carrying 70' poles were of no help. In an attempt to back out onto the highway at night, a husband and wife who struck the poles were killed and the ten children filed suit against the driver, the company, and all the police agencies involved. In the jury trial, the fault is assessed solely to the truck driver with an award of $2 million. In a bifurcated non-jury trial against the sheriff, a judge found the sheriff partly at fault and granted a judgment NOV in the jury trial against the State Police. Action: reversed as to liability on the part of both police agencies. One partial dissent. Davis v. Witt

Worker's compensation available for "special missions" [tort]

Steve Covell — 2003-07-03T17:02:08Z

Employee is injured in automobile accident (ruptured lumbar disk) while returning from a job-required safety meeting. At issue is whether workers' compensation benefits are available. Action: lower courts reversed. Any time an employee is on a "special mission" for an employer, he is covered by workers' compensation regardless of the route he takes on the special mission. This is an exception to the coming and going rule that just going to work and returning from work are not covered. McLin v. Industrial Specialty Contractors

Interrogatories not allowed during medical review proceedings [proc] [tort]

Steve Covell — 2003-07-03T16:54:42Z

In this important case, the issue of whether a plaintiff has the right to require interrogatories during the medical review panel phase of a malpractice claim is considered. Several cases were consolidated and the Supreme Court granted writs to settle the issue. Action: lower courts correctly decreed that interrogatories are not available during the medical review panel phase of a case. Perritt v. Dona