|FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE
|FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 6th day of December, 2016, are as follows:
BY KNOLL, J.:
2016-CA-0087 DANA JOHNO v. JOHN DOE, ET AL. (Parish of Plaquemines)
Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's finding that La. R.S. Section 9:2800.17 is unconstitutional as applied retroactively, because the plaintiff's causes of action accrued before effective date of the statue. We remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
BY CRICHTON, J.:
2016-CA-1132 ARROW AVIATION COMPANY, LLC v. ST. MARTIN PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, CARLA RICHARD, ADMINISTRATOR (Parish of St. Martin)
We remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2016-B -1253 IN RE: GREGORY F. WILLIAMS, SR.
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, briefs, and oral argument, it is ordered that the name of Gregory F. Williams, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25538, be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law in this state. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.
WEIMER, J., concurs in the result.
2016-B -1115 C/W
IN RE: MITCHEL M. EVANS, II
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committees and disciplinary board, and considering the record of these consolidated matters, as well as the briefs and oral argument, it is ordered that Mitchel M. Evans, II, Louisiana Bar Roll number 19322, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for three years. It is further ordered that two years of the suspension shall be deferred. Following the active portion of the suspension, respondent shall be placed on supervised probation for two years governed by the conditions set forth in this opinion. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent, the ODC, and the probation monitor execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.