March 15, 2016 - 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/2016">Court Actions</a></li>

<li class="active">
March 15, 2016 
 </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 #015</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>The Opinions handed down on the&nbsp;15th day of March, 2016, are as follows: BY WEIMER, J.:&nbsp;<a href="/opinions/2016/15CJ1812.opn.pdf">2015-CJ-1812 TRACIE F. v. FRANCISCO D.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Jefferson)Accordingly, while we disagree with the appellate court's reasoning, we affirm the appellate court's decision to reinstate the child's maternal grandmother as the domiciliary parent in a joint custody arrangement with the child's biological father. AFFIRMED.KNOLL, J., concurs in the result for the reasons assigned by Crichton, J. HUGHES, J., dissents with reasons. CRICHTON, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.&nbsp;BY GUIDRY, J.: <a href="/opinions/2016/2015O1691.OPN.pdf">2015-O -1691 IN RE: JUSTICE OF THE PEACE LEROY J. LAICHE, JR., SECOND JUSTICE COURT, PARISH OF ASCENSION, STATE OF LOUISIANA</a> (Judiciary Commission)Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that respondent, Justice of the Peace Leroy J. Laiche, Jr., Second Justice of the Peace Court, Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana, be, and is hereby, removed from office, and that his office be, and is hereby, declared to be vacant. Further, the respondent is ordered pursuant to La. Sup.Ct. Rule XXIII, &sect; 26 to refrain from qualifying as a candidate for judicial office for five years and until certified by this court as eligible to become a candidate for judicial office. Finally, we cast the respondent with $14,243.80 in costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of his case. REMOVAL FROM JUDICIAL OFFICE ORDERED.WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons. HUGHES, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Weimer, J.&nbsp;BY CLARK, J.: <a href="/opinions/2016/2015C1793.OPN.pdf">2015-C -1793 COASTAL DRILLING COMPANY, L.L.C. v. BARRY J. DUFRENE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF ST. MARY PARISH SALES AND USE TAX DEPARTMENT AND EX-OFFICIO TAX COLLECTOR FOR ST. MARY PARISH</a>&nbsp;(Parish of St. Mary)We reverse the decree of unconstitutionality of LAC 61:I:4403(A) and (B)(2)render summary judgment in favor of Coastal Drilling. Accordingly, we order the refund of all taxes paid under protest, along with interest as allowed by law. REVERSED AND RENDERED.KNOLL, J., dissents and assigns reasons. WEIMER, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. HUGHES, J., dissents with reasons.&nbsp; BY HUGHES, J.: <a href="/opinions/2016/2015CC1114.OPN.pdf">2015-CC-1114 IN RE: MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL CLAIM OF ROSE TILLMAN C/W IN RE: THE MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL CLAIM OF ROSE TILLMAN C/W JAHMAL T. TILLMAN AND JIRUS T. TILLMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE DECEDENT, ROSE TILLMAN v. THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ON BEHALF OF DURGA RAM SURE, M.D., ET AL.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Jefferson)In the case of In Re: Medical Review Panel Claim of Rose Tillman, the judgment of the appellate court is reversed and the district court judgment, denying the defendants&rsquo; peremptory exceptions, pleading the objection of prescription, is reinstated; we remand the matter to the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson for further proceedings. REVERSED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REINSTATED; REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT.GUIDRY, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Crichton, J. CRICHTON, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.&nbsp;<a href="/opinions/2016/2015CC163%20CW%202015CC1264.OPN.pdf">2015-CC-1263 C/W 2015-CC-1264 IN RE: MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL FOR THE CLAIM OF PEIGHTON MILLER, ET AL. v. TULANE LAKESIDE HOSPITAL, ET AL.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Jefferson)In the case of In Re: Medical Review Panel Proceedings for the Claim of Peighton Miller v. Tulane-Lakeside Hospital, the judgment of the appellate court is reversed and the matter is remanded to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, with instructions to rule on the pretermitted assignment of error. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.GUIDRY, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Crichton, J. CRICHTON, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons. BY CRICHTON, J.: <a href="/opinions/2016/2014KO1555.OPN.pdf">2014-KO-1555 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. GERALD W. DAHLEM</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Washington) (Habitual Offender)Based upon the foregoing analysis, although we find the trial court may have considered the documentary evidence necessary to impose the enhanced provisions set forth in 14:98(E)(4)(a), as evidenced by the trial court&rsquo;s original sentence, we are unable to reach the jury composition issue. Even assuming a possible jury composition error, we find it was rendered moot by the defendant&rsquo;s multiple offender status, which required that he be sentenced under the mandatory hard labor requirement set forth in La. R.S. 15:529.1(G). For these reasons, we affirm the defendant&rsquo;s conviction and sentence. AFFIRMED.KNOLL, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons. HUGHES, J., concurs in the result.&nbsp;<a href="/opinions/2016/2015CC1754.OPN.pdf">2015-CC-1754 RICHARD DUPUY AND HIS WIFE, MELISSA DUPUY v. NMC OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C. D/B/A THE SPINE HOSPITAL OF LOUISIANA, FORMERLY, THE NEUROMEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL</a>&nbsp;(Parish of E. Baton Rouge)For the reasons set forth above, we hold that the plaintiffs&rsquo; claims that the Hospital failed to properly maintain and service equipment used in the sterilization of surgical instruments falls within the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act. We therefore find that the district court erred in denying the Hospital&rsquo;s second exception of prematurity in part and find that the district court should have granted the Hospital&rsquo;s second exception of prematurity in its entirety. The ruling of the district court is reversed.&nbsp; REVERSED.
 </div>

</div>