December 12, 2008 - 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/2008">Court Actions</a></li>

<li class="active">
December 12, 2008 
 </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 #079</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;12th day of December, 2008, are as follows:&nbsp;BY CALOGERO, C.J.:<a href="/opinions/2008/08C0414.pfc.opn.pdf">2008-C -0414 RANDY FONTENOT, ET AL. v. PATTERSON INSURANCE, ET AL. C/W GERMAINE BROOKS, ET AL. v. CITY OF LAFAYETTE, ET AL.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Lafayette) The court of appeal's decision based on its de novo review of the record in this case is reversed. This case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of the jury verdict under the manifest error standard of review, followed by application of the percentages of liability to the damages due the Fontenots and the stipulated property damages due LCG. The court of appeal should also review the JNOV under the standard set forth by this court in Davis. COURT OF APPEAL DECISION REVERSED; REMANDED TO COURT OF APPEALJOHNSON, J., concurs in the result. WEIMER, J., concurs in the result.&nbsp;<a href="/opinions/2008/08CJ1541.pfc.opn.pdf">2008-CJ-1541 STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF D.L.R.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Calcasieu) The court of appeal decision that reversed the district court judgment terminating T.D.J.'s parental rights to D.L.R. is hereby reversed. The district court judgment is reinstated. COURT OF APPEAL DECISION REVERSED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REINSTATED.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY JOHNSON, J.:<a href="/opinions/2008/07C1433.bjj.opn.pdf">2007-C -1433 FRANCES ORLANDO WIFE OF/AND NICHOLAS REGGIO v. E.T.I. , ABC INC. AND CITY OF NEW ORLEANS THROUGH NEW ORLEANS AVIATION BOARD</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Orleans) For these reasons, the lower courts erred in granting ETI's Exception of Prescription and dismissing NOAB's third party demand. The lower courts' rulings are hereby reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED.KIMBALL, J., concurs. VICTORY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons. TRAYLOR, J., concurs in part and dissents in part for reasons assigned by Victory, J. KNOLL, J., concurs. WEIMER, J., concurs and assigns reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY KNOLL, J.:<a href="/opinions/2008/08C0483.jtk.opn.pdf">2008-C -0483 THOMAS R. DENTON v. PAMELA A. VIDRINE, AMERICAN DEPOSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, LA SHERIFFS' AUTOMOBILE RISK PROGRAM, AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY C/W PAMELA VIDRINE v. THOMAS R. DENTON, RANDALL ANDRE IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF FOR THE PARISH OF WEST BATON ROUGE - WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE, LOUISIANA SHERIFFS' AUTOMOBILE RISK PROGRAM AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY</a>&nbsp;(Parish of W. Baton Rouge) For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, is reversed and set aside. The trial court's judgment of June 27, 2005, is reinstated, denying Thomas Denton's motion to introduce additional evidence and fix interest. REVERSED AND RENDERED.JOHNSON, J., concurs.&nbsp;&nbsp;PER CURIAM:<a href="/opinions/2008/08B1080.pc.opn.pdf">2008-B -1080 IN RE: KYM KRYSTYNA KELLER</a> (Disciplinary Proceedings) Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and the disciplinary board, and considering the record, briefs, and oral argument, it is ordered that Kym Krystyna Keller, Louisiana Bar Roll number 23808, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. It is further ordered that all but six months of the suspension shall be deferred. Following completion of the active portion of her suspension, respondent shallbe placed on unsupervised probation for one year governed by the conditions set forth in this opinion. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditionsof probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred 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, &sect;10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.VICTORY, J., dissents and assigns reasons. WEIMER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with reasons.&nbsp;
 </div>

</div>