September 6, 2006 - Opinions - Louisiana Supreme Court

<div>
 <div class="content">
 <div class="bcrumb">
 <ol class="row breadcrumb offprint">
 <li><a href="/">Home</a></li>
 <li><a href="CourtActions/2006">Court Actions</a></li>

<li class="active">
September 6, 2006 
 </li>

</ol>

</div>
 </div>

<div id="mainbodycontent" class="col col-md-12 mainbodycontent" style="margin-top:-10px;"> 
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="90%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td valign="top" width="63%">FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE</td><td valign="top" width="37%"><div align="right">NEWS RELEASE #049</div></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td valign="top">FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA</td><td valign="top">&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table>&nbsp;The Opinions handed down on the&nbsp;6th day of September, 2006, are as follows:&nbsp;BY KIMBALL, J.:<a href="/opinions/2006/05kk2107.opn.pdf">2005-KK-2107 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. AMANDA M. GUTWEILER A/K/A AMANDA HYPES</a> (Parish of Rapides) (First Degree Murder - Three Counts)Writ recalled. Denied as moot. WEIMER, J., would not recall the writ. <a href="/opinions/2006/05C2298.opn.pdf">2005-C- 2298 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE CITYOF GONZALES, LOUISIANA, INC. v. ALL TAXPAYERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF GONZALES, STATE OF LOUISIANA AND OF THE GONZALES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 AND NON-RESIDENTS OWNING PROPERTY OR SUBJECT TO TAXATION IN SAID CITY OR DISTRICT, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS INTERESTED IN OR AFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $49,875,000 OF TAX INCREMENT TAXABLE AND/ OR TAX-EXEMPT REVENUE BONDS</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Ascension)For all the above reasons, we find that neither the TIF Act, as applied in this case, nor the Project at issue violate La. Const. art. VII, &sect;14(A). Similarly, we find defendants did not prove the existence of an equal protection violation. Therefore, we reject the constitutional challenges presented by defendants and affirm the judgment of the courtof appeal.&nbsp; AFFIRMED.TRAYLOR, J., dissents and assigns reasons. KNOLL, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Justice Traylor.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY JOHNSON, J.:<a href="/opinions/2006/05cc0257.opn.pdf">2005-CC-0257 KEVIN D. LAWSON, ET AL. v. MITSUBISHI MOTOR SALES OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.</a>(Parish of Calcasieu)Therefore, we reverse the appellate court's decision, and we reinstate the jury's verdict. REVERSED; JURY VERDICT REINSTATEDRetired Judge Philip C. Ciaccio, assigned as Justice Pro Tempore, sitting for Associate Justice Catherine D. Kimball.VICTORY, J., concurs in the result. TRAYLOR, J., concurs and assigns reasons. KNOLL, J., dissents and assigns reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY VICTORY, J.:<a href="/opinions/2006/05c0470.opn.pdf">2005-C- 0470 WAYNE COSBY, KARI FITZGERALD, JOHN FITZGERALD, STAN MCDONALD, KEITHSTEVENS, KAREN WILLIAMS, CARL WILLIAMS, AND PETER OELSCHLAEGER v. HOLCOMB TRUCKING, INC., HENRY H. HOLCOMB, AND JOYCE M. HOLCOMB</a>&nbsp;(Parishof Livingston) For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, the judgment of the trial court is reinstated, and the case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of the remaining assignments of error consistent with the reasoning of this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL.JOHNSON, J., concurs. KNOLL, J., dissents and assigns reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY KNOLL, J.:<a href="/opinions/2006/05C2023.opn.pdf">2005-C- 2023 POWER MARKETING DIRECT, INC. v. CHRIS FOSTER</a> (Parish of Ouachita) For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the district court annulling the default judgment obtained against Power Marketing is reinstated. REVERSED AND RENDERED.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY WEIMER, J.:<a href="/opinions/2006/1998ka1078.opn.pdf">1998-KA-1078 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ALLEN SNYDER</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Jefferson)ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESAccordingly, we reinstate the following decree. In accordance with the above reasons assigned by this court, we unconditionally affirm the judgment of the trial court and the sentence of death. In the event this judgment becomes final on direct review when either: (1) the defendant fails to petition timely the United States Supreme Court for certiorari; or (2) that court denies his petition for certiorari; and either (a) the defendant, having filed foror and been denied certiorari, fails to petition the United States Supreme Court timely, under its prevailing rules, for rehearing of denial of certiorari; or (b) that court denies his petition for rehearing, the trial judge shall, upon receiving notice from this court under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 923 of finality of direct appeal, and before signing the warrant of execution as provided by LSA-R.S. 15:567 (B), immediately notify the Louisiana Indigent Defense Assistance Board and provide the Board with reasonable time in which: (1) to enroll counsel to represent the defendant in any state post-conviction proceedings, if appropriate, pursuant to its authority under LSA-R.S. 15:149.1; and (2) to litigate expeditiously the claims raised in that original application, if filed in the state courts.&nbsp; AFFIRMED.Retired Judge Fred C. Sexton, assigned as Associate Justice Ad Hoc., sitting for Associate Justice Jeannette T. Knoll, recused.CALOGERO, C.J., dissents for reasons assigned by Kimball, J. KIMBALL, J., dissents and assigns reasons. JOHNSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 </div>

</div>