June 30, 2015 - 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/2015">Court Actions</a></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 #032</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;30th day of June, 2015, are as follows:&nbsp;BY JOHNSON, C.J.: <a href="/opinions/2015/14C2483.opn.pdf">2014-C -2483	TRACY RAY LOMONT v. MICHELLE MYER-BENNETT AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Jefferson)Because we find plaintiff filed suit within one year of discovering defendant&rsquo;s malpractice, we hold the lower courts erred in sustaining defendant&rsquo;s exception of peremption. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.&nbsp; REVERSED AND REMANDED.GUIDRY, J., concurs.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY KNOLL, J.: <a href="/opinions/2015/14CA2506.opn.pdf">2014-CA-2506	LEE W. RAND, JEREMY D. BOYCE, KEISHA M. GUICHARD, AND EDMOND J. HARRIS v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Orleans)Accordingly, because plaintiffs have failed to follow the strictures of motion for summary judgment procedure, we decline to address the merits of plaintiffs&rsquo; constitutional challenge. Due to the fatal flaws present in plaintiffs&rsquo; motion for summary judgment, we reverse the District Court&rsquo;s judgment granting the permanent injunction, reinstate the preliminary injunction prohibiting the City from undertaking any hearings based on this ordinance, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.&nbsp; REVERSED; PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REINSTATED; REMANDED.JOHNSON, C.J., concurs in result.&nbsp;<a href="/opinions/2015/15B0284.opn.pdf">2015-B -0284	IN RE: JOYCE NANINE MCCOOL</a>Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and the disciplinary board, and considering the record, briefs, and oral arguments, it is ordered that Joyce Nanine McCool, Louisiana Bar Number 27026, be and hereby is disbarred. Her name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys and her license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX, &sect; 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this Court&rsquo;s judgment until paid.WEIMER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons.&nbsp; GUIDRY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. CANNELLA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY WEIMER, J.:<a href="/opinions/2015/14C1899.opn.pdf">2014-C -1899	HOLLY D. SWAYZE, ET AL. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Ouachita)For the foregoing reasons, we find that the appellate court legally erred in vacating the city court judgment as a nullity and in remanding this matter to the city court for the sole purpose of having the city court transfer plaintiff&rsquo;s action to a court of proper jurisdiction. Because the appellate court&rsquo;s determination of jurisdiction allowed it to pretermit the issues of causation and quantum that were raised by the UM insurer on appeal, the interest of justice requires that this case be remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of those issues. REVERSED; REMANDED.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY GUIDRY, J.: <a href="/opinions/2015/15CA0432.opn.pdf">2015-CA-0432	KASHA LAPOINTE v. VERMILION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Vermilion)Accordingly, the declaration of unconstitutionality from the court of appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for consideration of the plaintiff&rsquo;s as-applied challenge. REVERSED AND REMANDED.HUGHES, J., dissents with reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY CLARK, J.: <a href="/opinions/2015/14C2362.opn.pdf">2014-C -2362 RICHARD L. REYNOLDS v. ROBERT J. BORDELON III, ROBERT J. BORDELON JR., USAGENCIES CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE, AND/OR AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A TRIPLE A INSURANCE, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INFINITY DIVISION OF NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A LUXURY CAR DIVISION OF NISSAN MOTORS, INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS CORP., ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, DEF INSURANCE COMPANY AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY C/W STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF/AND LINDA DUPUY v. ROBERT BORDELON AND USAGENCIES CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY</a>&nbsp;(Parish of St. Tammany)We find the petition alleges sufficient facts to support a breach of contract cause of action. Thus, we reverse the judgment that granted the exception of no cause of action and remand to the trial court for consideration of the contract claim. We offer no opinion as to the ultimate success of this cause of action or to any defense thereto. REVERSED AND REMANDED.WEIMER, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.&nbsp;<a href="/opinions/2015/14C2371.opn.pdf">2014-C -2371 RICHARD L. REYNOLDS v. ROBERT J. BORDELON III, ROBERT J. BORDELON JR., USAGENCIES CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE, AND/OR AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A TRIPLE A INSURANCE, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INFINITY DIVISION OF NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A LUXURY CAR DIVISION OF NISSAN MOTORS, INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS CORP., ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, DEF INSURANCE COMPANY AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY C/W STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF/AND LINDA DUPUY v. ROBERT BORDELON AND USAGENCIES CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY</a>&nbsp;(Parish of St. Tammany)For the reasons expressed herein, we find no error in the grant of summary judgment in favor of Nissan and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeal. AFFIRMED.HUGHES, J., dissents with reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY HUGHES, J.: <a href="/opinions/2015/14CQ1598.opn.pdf">2014-CQ-1598	R.T. FAULK, III, COREY FARMS, L.L.C.; FAULK FARMS, INCORPORATED; JOANNE HODGES; RIVER VALLEY PROPERTIES; MCHENRY FARMS, L.L.C.; SHERMAN SHAW; T.P. GODWIN; WILLIAM G. NADLER; MCHENRY REALTY PARTNERSHIP v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY</a>We have answered the certified question as set forth in this opinion. Pursuant to Rule XII, Supreme Court of Louisiana, the judgment rendered by this court upon the question certified shall be sent by the clerk of this court under its seal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and to the parties. CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED.WEIMER, J., concurs and assigns reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;BY CRICHTON, J.: <a href="/opinions/2015/14CK1410.opn.pdf">2014-CK-1410	STATE IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.A.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Calcasieu)For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the district court and the court of appeal are affirmed, solely as to their ruling that K.L.A. himself is not required to comply with requirements of La. R.S. 32:412(I) and La. R.S. 40:1321(J).&nbsp; AFFIRMED.&nbsp;&nbsp;PER CURIAM: <a href="/opinions/2015/14K0945.opn.pdf">2014-K -0945	STATE OF LOUISIANA v. WILLIE JAMES ROBERTSON</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Lafayette)(Second Degree Murder)Under these circumstances, the court of appeal correctly concluded that rational jurors would necessarily have reasonable doubt as to whether defendant's unauthorized presence in the home was a substantial contributing factor in the victim's death, the precipitating event leading to the sudden cardiac arrest that killed her, and was therefore guilty of a homicide, whether second degree murder or manslaughter. The judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed. AFFIRMED.CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.<div></div>
 </div>

</div>