Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to consider two separate, but related issues: (1) whether the suspension of prescription provided for in La. C.C.P. art. 596 extended to a putative class member who filed an individual claim after a ruling on the class certification issue and, if so, (2) whether La. C.C.P. art. 596 suspended prescription when the putative class action is filed in another jurisdiction. After reviewing the relevant statutory provisions, the Court found that the filing of an individual lawsuit after a ruling on class certification does not operate as an "opt out" of a class action proceeding and a forfeiture of the benefits of suspension provided in La. C.C.P. art. 596, but that the provisions of La. C.C.P. art. 596 do not extend to suspend prescription on claims asserted in a putative class action filed in a federal court. As a result, the Court reversed the district court's judgment denying the defendant's exception of prescription, sustain the exception, and remanded this case to the district court to allow plaintiffs the opportunity to amend the petition, if they could, to allege facts to show their claims were not prescribed. View "Quinn v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether an alleged biological father could bring a wrongful death and survival action for his illegitimate child, where the father did not file a timely avowal action, but filed his wrongful death and survival petition to assert his paternity within the peremptive period of La. Civ. Code art. 198. In resolving this issue, the Court had to decide whether the filiation requirements of La. Civ. Code art. 198 applied to actions under La. Civ. Code arts. 2315.1 and 2315.2. Upon review, the Court concluded that while the alleged was required to file an avowal action in order to bring a wrongful death and survival action, under Louisiana’s fact-pleading system, his petition pled sufficient facts to state an avowal action. View "Udomeh v. Joseph" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the court of appeal erred in holding the district court erred in finding that a governmental entity proved a sufficient public necessity for expropriating property. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that court of appeal did not properly apply the manifest error standard of review. As such, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and reinstated the judgment of the district court. View "Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Gov't v. Person" on Justia Law

This criminal matter presented the res nova issue of whether a second arrest without a conviction for the charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated (DWI) constitutes "a second violation of R.S. 14:98," which triggers the provisions of La. Rev. Stat. 32:667(I)(1)(a) (mandating the installation of an ignition interlock for the accused's refusal to submit to a chemical breath test following his arrest.) Plaintiff's license was suspended as a result of his refusal to take a breath test after his second arrest for DWI. When plaintiff was acquitted of this second DWI charge, he filed a rule to show cause why his license should not be immediately reinstated. Defendant-in-rule, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles (OMV), agreed plaintiff was entitled to have his license reinstated, but contended an ignition interlock device must be installed on his vehicle under La. Rev. Stat. 32:667(I)(1)(a) because of his refusal to submit to chemical testing after being arrested a second time for DWI. The District Court reinstated plaintiff's license without requiring an ignition interlock device, and the court of appeal affirmed, interpreting 'a second violation" as requiring a prior conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the second arrest on the charge of DWI was merely an allegation of a second violation, and did not constitute "a second violation of R.S. 14:98" in and of itself. The Court affirmed the lower courts' judgments reinstating plaintiff's license without restriction. View "Boudreaux v. Louisiana Dept. of Pub. Safety & Corr." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether plaintiffs' dismissal with prejudice of a lawsuit filed in federal court after the defendant has made a general appearance of record was a "voluntary dismissal" for purposes of La. C.C. art. 3463, which provides "[i]nterruption [of prescription] is considered never to have occurred if the plaintiff abandons, voluntarily dismisses the action at any time either before the defendant has made any appearance of record or thereafter . . ." After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and the reinstated the trial court's dismissing plaintiffs' suit. View "Sims v. American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned Defendants’ entitlement to trial by jury. Specifically, whether the Court’s holding in "Beauclaire v. Greenhouse" mandated that a resolution in accordance with La. R.S. 13:5015, waiving the prohibition against jury trials in suits against a political subdivision, must be passed by the political subdivision prior to a plaintiff filing suit for the political subdivision to be entitled to a trial by jury. Upon review of the applicable statutory and case law authority, the Supreme Court found that Defendants were entitled to trial by jury, and therefore reversed the rulings of the lower courts. View "Marcille v. Dauzat" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether defendant could be guilty of second degree murder for leaving her two small children home alone in the middle of the night, during which time a fire broke out and one of her children died in the fire. After reviewing the facts and the applicable law, the Court found that a conviction for second degree murder could not be supported where defendant’s criminally negligent act of leaving her young children alone in the middle of the night was not a "direct act" of killing, but was instead a criminally negligent act of lack of supervision which resulted in death. For that reason, the Court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of negligent homicide. View "Louisiana v. Small" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the writ of the City of Bossier City to determine the proper interpretation of La. R.S. 33:2501(C)(1); specifically, whether the statutory authority of the Bossier City Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board to modify discipline was conditioned upon a finding that the appointing authority acted in bad faith or without cause. After review, the Court found that a municipal fire and police civil service board has the statutory authority to review and modify the discipline imposed, even when the appointing authority acts in good faith for cause. View "City of Bossier City v. Vernon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in this case to determine whether the court of appeal erred in overturning Defendant’s conviction for aggravated burglary. Jerome Bryant, Jr. argued that the State failed to prove that he actually entered the victim's home. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the trial judge’s finding that Defendant entered the victim’s home, the Court reversed and reinstated the trial court's judgment. View "Louisiana v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Defendant James C. Magee was indicted by a grand jury for the first degree murder of Adrienne Magee, the first degree murder of Ashton Zachary Magee, the attempted first degree murder of S.M., and the attempted first degree murder of L.M. Following the close of evidence, the jury found the defendant guilty as charged on all counts and, at the conclusion of the penalty phase of the trial, recommended two sentences of death. In accordance with that recommendation, the district court sentenced the defendant to death by lethal injection for the murders of Adrienne and Zack Magee and to two consecutive terms of 50 years of imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence for the attempted first degree murders of S.M. and L.M. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences, raising seventeen assignments of error. "After a thorough review of the law and the evidence," the Supreme Court found no merit to any of Defendant's assignments of error, and affirmed his sentences and convictions. View "Louisiana v. Magee" on Justia Law