May 1, 2018 - 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/2018">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 #021</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 1st day of May, 2018, are as follows: &nbsp;BY HUGHES, J.: <a href="/opinions/2018/17-1132.C.OPN.pdf">2017-C-1132</a> <a href="/opinions/2018/17-1132.C.OPN.pdf">SUCCESSION OF CHARLES GEORGE HARLAN</a> (Parish of Pointe Coupee) The issue in this case is whether a revocation clause, contained within a notarial testament that was found to be void for failure to include an attestation clause, could be valid as an authentic act and thereby revoke two prior testaments, resulting in an intestate succession. The district court found no valid revocation. The appellate court ruled that the invalid testament nevertheless met the requirements of La. C.C. art. 1833 so as to qualify as an authentic act, capable of revoking prior testaments pursuant to La. C.C. art. 1607(2). For the following reasons we reverse the appellate court, reinstate the district court rulings, and remand to the district court for further proceedings. REVERSED; REMANDED. GENOVESE, J., dissents and assigns reasons. &nbsp;PER CURIAM: <a href="/opinions/2018/16-1100.KP.OPN.pdf">2016-KP-1100</a> <a href="/opinions/2018/16-1100.KP.OPN.pdf">STATE OF LOUISIANA v. LEROY JACKSON</a> (Parish of Orleans) The only real question here is whether counsel&rsquo;s deficient performance prejudiced defendant. We find it clear that it did. There are stark contrasts between the witnesses&rsquo; descriptions of the robber&rsquo;s complexion, hair, height, and weight, and those characteristics of the defendant. Furthermore, the convictions rested solely on the witness identifications, which went virtually unchallenged at trial. The likelihood of a different result if that information had been used at trial in a case with no other evidence linking defendant to the crimes is more than conceivable; it is substantial. Therefore, we find it sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. We reverse the court of appeal and reinstate the district court&rsquo;s ruling that granted defendant a new trial. The matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. WEIMER, J., concurs in the result. GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons. CLARK, J., dissents. CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. &nbsp;<a href="/opinions/2018/17-1274.C.OPN.pdf">2017-C-1274</a> <a href="/opinions/2018/17-1274.C.OPN.pdf">BOARD OF ETHICS IN THE MATTER OF JORDAN MONSOUR AND WALTER MONSOUR</a> (Louisiana Board of Ethics) In this case, we are called upon to decide whether certain provisions of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure apply to a motion for summary judgment filed in administrative proceedings before the Ethics Adjudicatory Board. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the evidence produced in connection with motions for summary judgment in these administrative proceedings must conform to the same requirements applicable to civil proceedings. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed. The case is remanded to the Ethics Adjudicatory Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED.&nbsp; &nbsp;<a href="/opinions/2018/17-2045.B.OPN.pdf">2017-B-2045</a> <a href="/opinions/2018/17-2045.B.OPN.pdf">IN RE: DEBRA L. CASSIBRY</a> Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committees and disciplinary board, and considering the record and the brief filed by the ODC, it is ordered that Debra L. Cassibry, Louisiana Bar Roll number 17029, be and she 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 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. CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons. &nbsp;<a href="/opinions/2018/17-2153.B.OPN.pdf">2017-B-2153</a> <a href="/opinions/2018/17-2153.B.OPN.pdf">IN RE: LIONEL LON BURNS</a> 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 Lionel Lon Burns, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 25352, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. It is further ordered that respondent attend and successfully complete the next available session of the Louisiana State Bar Association&rsquo;s Ethics School. 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&rsquo;s judgment until paid. CLARK, J., dissents for the reasons given by Justice Genovese. HUGHES, J., dissents and assigns reasons. GENOVESE, J., dissents and assigns reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 </div>

</div>