December 6, 2011 - 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/2011">Court Actions</a></li>

<li class="active">
December 6, 2011 
 </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 #077</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 December, 2011, are as follows:&nbsp;BY JOHNSON, J.: <a href="/opinions/2011/10KA0268.opn.pdf">2010-KA-0268	STATE OF LOUISIANA v. LEE ROY ODENBAUGH, JR.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Ouachita) (First Degree Murder; Attempted First Degree Murder)Justice Clark recused, and Retired Judge Hillary J. Crain sitting ad hoc.For the reasons assigned herein, defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. 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 for 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 on 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. AFFIRMED.&nbsp;<a href="/opinions/2011/11K0141.opn.pdf">2011-K -0141	STATE OF LOUISIANA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY WRIGHT</a>&nbsp;(Parish of St. Tammany) (Aggravated Incest)Accordingly, we vacate the appellate court&rsquo;s decision, which reversed the defendant&rsquo;s conviction, and we remand the case to the court of appeal for consideration of the defendant&rsquo;s remaining assignment of error. DECISION VACATED AND CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY KNOLL, J.: <a href="/opinions/2011/11C0912.opn.pdf">2011-C -0912	THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT v. OILFIELD HEAVY HAULERS, L.L.C., ET AL.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Acadia)For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the matter remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. REVERSED; REMANDED.GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY WEIMER, J.: <a href="/opinions/2011/11C0366.opn.pdf">2011-C -0366	MELANIE CHRISTY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR SON, JUSTIN CHRISTY v. DR. SANDRA MCCALLA AND THE CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Caddo)For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed.&nbsp; REVERSED.JOHNSON, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Knoll, J.&nbsp; KNOLL, J., dissents and assigns reasons.&nbsp;<a href="/opinions/2011/11C0853.opn.pdf">2011-C -0853	ROGER E. PRICE, ET AL. v. ROY O. MARTIN, ET AL.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Rapides)For the reasons set forth above, we conclude the district court manifestly erred in finding the requirements of La. C.C.P. art. 591(A)(2)&ndash;questions of law or fact common to the class&ndash;were proved. The district court likewise erred in finding, under La. C.C.P. art. 591(B)(3), that common issue of law or fact predominate over individual questions and that the class action procedure is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the claims asserted. As a consequence, we find that the district court abused its discretion in accepting this matter as a class action and in certifying the class. We therefore reverse the appellate court&rsquo;s judgment affirming the district court&rsquo;s class action certification, reverse the district court&rsquo;s ruling granting the motion for class certification and certifying the class, and remand the case for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED.&nbsp;
 </div>

</div>