author: 11 KNOLL, Justice.

text:
    The SULTANA CORPORATION, d/b/a Hannon Jewelers v. JEWELERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2003-C-0360.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 3, 2003.

      Leonard Cardenas, III, Baton Rouge, for Applicant.
    Amos H. Davis, Baton Rouge, for Respondent.
    Adrianne L. Baumgartner, Covington, for Amicus Curiae, Louisiana Association.
   11 KNOLL, Justice.

This case addresses a split among the circuit courts of appeal as to whether proof of actual damages is a prerequisite to an award of penalties under La.Rev.Stat. AnN. § 22:1220(0 for an insurer’s failure to timely fund a settlement. Finding actual damages need not be proven, we reverse and remand to the trial court for the assessment of damages.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Sultana Corporation d/b/a Hannon Jewelers (hereinafter Sultana) sued its insurer, Jewelers Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Jewelers), over an issue of insurance coverage. After a bench trial, Sultana was awarded judgment in the amount of $14,426, plus legal interest and court costs, against Jewelers. Acquiescing in the judgment, Jewelers wrote a letter on February 1, 2001, to Sultana, agreeing to settle the litigation for the amount awarded in the trial court. In conformity with Jewelers’s instructions, Sultana’s counsel wrote “Agreed & Accepted” on the settlement letter, signed and dated it, and returned the letter by fax on the same day it was received. Counsel for Jewelers then requested issuance of a settlement check.

When Sultana received no further communications regarding the settlement, its counsel sent a letter on March 14, 2001, to the trial judge, forwarding a copy of a | ;>rnotion to enforce settlement and prayer to assess statutory penalties and costs for Jewelers’s failure to pay the amount owed within thirty days of settlement. Jewelers received a copy of the letter on March 15, 2001. After counsel for Jewelers determined that a check had not been tendered because of a clerical error in Jewelers’s Wisconsin office, it immediately forwarded a settlement check. Notwithstanding receipt of the settlement funds, Sultana pursued its motion for statutory penalties under La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220(0.

After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied Sultana’s motion. It indicated that Sultana was not entitled to a penalty award because it failed to prove it sustained actual damages by Jewelers’s untimely payment of the settlement. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court determined that the affidavit of Bayardo Hannon, Sultana’s owner, which stated he had to use out-of-pocket cash instead ■ of the settlement proceeds to fund new store construction, was insufficient to establish actual damages. Sultana appealed.

In its affirmation of the trial court, the court of appeal, relying on weh settled jurisprudence in the First Circuit, held that the trial court did not err in requiring Sultana to prove actual damages to support its penalty claim against Jewelers. In reaching this conclusion, the appellate court recognized the Third, Fourth and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal have found that penalties can be awarded pursuant to LaJ3Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220(C) even if actual damages were not proven. Alternatively, the appellate court further found no manifest error in the trial court’s determination that Hannon’s affidavit was insufficient to establish actual damages. The Sultana Corporation d/b/a Hannon Jewelers v. Jewelers Mutual Ins. Co., 01-2059 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/31/02), 837 So.2d 134.

We granted Sultana’s writ application to reconcile the split among the various courts of appeal on the narrow issue of whether actual damages must be proven before penalties may be assessed under La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220(C). The Sultana Corporation d/b/a Hannon Jewelers v. Jewelers Mutual Ins. Co., 03-360 (La.4/25/03), 842 So.2d 387.

DISCUSSION

The function of statutory interpretation and the construction given to legislative acts rests with the judicial branch of the government. Touchard v. Williams, 617 So.2d 885 (La.1993). Principles of judicial interpretation of statutes are designed to ascertain and enforce the intent of the Legislature in enacting the statute. SWAT 21 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond, 2000-1695 (La.6/29/01), 808 So.2d 294, citing Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La7/7/99), 739 So.2d 762, 766; State v. Piazza, 596 So.2d 817, 819 (La.1992). The fundamental question in all cases of statutory construction is legislative intent and the reasons that prompted the Legislature to enact the law. Succession of Boyter, 99-0761 (La.1/7/00), 756 So.2d 1122, 1128. When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, it shall be applied as written, with no further inquiry-made in search of the legislative intent. La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 9; La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 1:4.

| ¿The meaning and intent of a law is determined by considering the law in its entirety and all other laws concerning the same subject matter and construing the provision in a manner that is consistent with the express terms of the statute and with the obvious intent of the lawmaker in enacting it. Boyter, 756 So.2d at 1129; Stogner, 739 So.2d at 766. The statute must therefore be applied and interpreted in a manner that is logical and consistent with the presumed fair purpose and intention the Legislature had in enacting it. Boyter, 756 So.2d at 1129. Courts should give effect to all parts of a statute and should not adopt a statutory construction that makes any part superfluous or meaningless, if that result can be avoided. Langlois v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 99-2007 (La.5/16/00), 761 So.2d 504, 507; Boyter, 756 So.2d at 1129. Furthermore, “the object of the court in construing a statute is to ascertain the legislative intent and, where a literal interpretation would produce absurd consequences, the letter must give way to the spirit of the law and the statute construed so as to produce a reasonable result.” First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Beckwith Mach. Co., 94-2065 (La.2/20/95), 650 So.2d 1148, 1153 (quoting Smith v. Flournoy, 238 La. 432, 115 So.2d 809, 814 (1959)). The starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself. Touchard, 617 So.2d at 888.

As recognized in Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), 694 So.2d 184, 187, La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220 was enacted as part of the “Unfair Trade Practices” section of the Insurance Code. La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220 provides, in pertinent part:

|rA. An insurer ... owes to his insured a duty of good faith and fair dealing. The insurer has an affirmative duty to adjust claims fairly and promptly and to make a reasonable effort to settle claims with the insured or the claimant, or both. Any insurer who breaches these duties shall be liable for any damages sustained as a result of the breach.
B. Any one of the following acts, if knowingly committed or performed by an insurer, constitutes a breach of the insurer’s duties imposed in Subsection A:
(2) Failing to pay a settlement within thirty days after an agreement is reduced to writing.
C. In addition to any general or special damages to which a claimant is entitled for breach of the imposed duty, the claimant may be awarded penalties assessed against the insurer in an amount not to exceed two times the damages sustained or five thousand dollars, whichever is greater. Such penalties, if awarded, shall not be used by the insurer in computing either past or prospective loss experience for the purpose of setting rates or making rate filings.

We have generally held that statutes subjecting insurers to penalties, such as La. Rev.Stat. ÁNN. § 22:1220, are considered penal and, as such, should be strictly construed. Theriot, 694 So.2d at 187; Hart v. Allstate Ins. Co., 437 So.2d 823 (La.1983).

An insurer owes its insured the duty specified by La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220(B)(2), i.e., payment of a settlement within thirty days after it has been reduced to writing, and an insured has a cause of action against the insurer for a violation of that duty. As this Court recognized in Theriot, 694 So.2d 184, the practice by insurers of delaying the issuance of settlement checks was one of the principal grounds for the enactment of this statute. Theriot, 694 So.2d at 187.

Subsection (C) of La.Rev.Stat. ANN. § 22:1220, which stipulates the penalties which may be awarded for an insurer’s' breach of its duty to perform any of the acts enumerated in Subsection (B), provides that “[i]n addition to any general or | fispecial damages to which a claimant is entitled for breach of the imposed duty, the claimant may be awarded penalties.” (emphasis added). Compare Subsection (A) of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220 which states that “[a]ny insurer who breaches these duties shall be liable for any damages sustained as a result of the breach”, (emphasis added). Simply stated, even though the award -of general or special damages, if requested, is mandatory, the trial court’s grant of penalties under Subsection (C) of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220 is discretionary. Although the litigants are in general agreement with the mandatory award of damages under Subsection (A) and the permissive nature of the penalty award under Subsection (C), they disagree as to whether general and/or special damages must be proven before penalties may be awarded under Subsection (C).

By the clear implication of its ruling, the trial court found the settlement agreement between Sultana and Jewelers was complete on February 1, 2001. That finding is supported by the record, and the settlement was reduced to writing for purposes of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220 on that date. Because payment was not tendered until forty-one days later on March 15, 2001, it is also clear the insurer failed to pay the settlement within the 30-day period required by La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220(B)(2).

Reflective of the First Circuit’s appreciation of the issue presented is well stated in Carter v. Davis, 95-2198 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/96), 673 So.2d 362, writ denied, 96-1449 (La.5/27/97), 696 So.2d- 991. In the Carter case, the sole issue presented on appeal was whether the trial court erred in awarding $5,000 in penalties for bad faith 17settlement practices under La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220. Carter, 673 So.2d at 363. In reversing the trial court’s penalty award, the First Circuit reasoned: ■

[W]e believe that the plain language of the statute dictates this result. A court’s interpretation of a law should reflect the meaning the lawmaker intended. Furthermore, it is presumed that every word, sentence or provision in the law was intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect is to be given to each such provision, and that no unnecessary words or provisions were used. The penalty provision clearly states, “[I]n addition to any general or special damages to which a claimant is entitled for breach of the imposed duty, the claimant may be awarded penalties .... ” (Emphasis supplied.) Giving meaning to each word of the statute, we believe that the lawmakers, intended the penalty provisions in Section C of the statute to apply only in circumstances where the claimant has proven his entitlement to general or special damages.
It is the plaintiffs burden to prove the damage he suffered as a result of defendant’s fault, and to support an award there must be evidence in the record. The record herein reveals no evidence of damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s conduct. Under these circumstances the trial court erred in awarding plaintiffs penalties under LSA R.S. 22:1220.

Carter, 673 So.2d at 364-65.

As to the other circuit courts of appeal who have addressed the question of whether proof of actual damages is a prerequisite to the award of penalties, Midland Risk Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 93-1611 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/21/94), 643 So.2d 242, best illustrates the countervailing position that a showing of damages is not required. The Third Circuit stated:

Section 1220(A) legislatively imposes a duty of good faith and fair dealing on insurers. Section 1220(B) enumerates certain acts, which if knowingly committed or performed by an insurer, constitute a breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing.. . .
Penalties are imposed to discourage certain types of conduct by an insurer. The language in Section 1220(C) does not expressly require that a claimant suffer damages before recovering penalties. Moreover,' if this requirement Iswas so, the statute’s purpose more often would be thwarted. Claimants may decide not to file claims against insurers if the disputed amount or the damages are not substantial. As an end result, the misconduct which the legislature obviously intended to curb or deter would thrive. Thus, we find if an insurer commits any one of the acts enumerated in Section 1220(B), penalties may be imposed without a showing of damages.

Midland, 643 So.2d at 244.

After carefully comparing the two analy-ses of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220(0, we find the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits’ holdings with regard to the interpretation and application of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220(C) correct and more reconcilable with the Legislature’s enactment of this statute. Such an understanding squares well with the principle that an insurer’s duty of fair dealing emanates from the contractual and fiduciary relationship between the insured and insurer. See Manual v. Louisiana Sheriff’s Risk Management Fund, 95-0406 (La.11/27/95), 664 So.2d 81.

The penalty provision clearly states, “[I]n addition to any general or special damages to which a claimant is entitled for breach of the imposed duty, the claimant may be awarded penalties .... ” (emphasis added). “In its usual sense, to entitle is ... [t]o qualify for; to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming.” Black's Law Dictionary 626 (4th ed.1968). Under the provisions of Section (A) of La.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:1220 the insurer “shall be liable for any damages sustained [by the insured or the claimant, or both] as a result of the breach” of its “duty of good faith and fair dealing.” Clearly, Sultana is entitled to seek general or special damages from its insurer, Jewelers; it simply chose not to seek such damages in the present case. Notwithstanding, Section (C) of La. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220 recognizes that the trial court may award penalties “[i]n addition to any general or special damages to which a claimant is entitled.” Requiring the insured or claimant to prove general or special damages as a prerequisite to the award of penalties as advocated- in the First 19Circuit, even though the insured or claimant has not so claimed, interjects a requirement not provided in the statute.

It is presumed the Legislature acts with full knowledge of' well-settled principles of statutory construction. State v. Bedford, 01-2298 (La.1/28/03), 838 So.2d 758. It is also presumed that every word, sentence or provision in a statute was intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect be given to each such provision, and that the Legislature used no unnecessary words or provisions. Bunch v. Town of St. Francisville, 446 So.2d 1357 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984). Applying these principles to the present case, we find the appellate court erred in requiring the insured to prove that it suffered damages as a prerequisite for the discretionary award of penalties under Section (C) of La.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:1220.

We further find no merit in Jewelers’s contention that Sultana had the burden of proving Jewelers arbitrarily and capriciously withheld the settlement funds for more than thirty days. Section (B)(2) of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220 does not require such proof. Compare Section (B)(5) of La.Rev.Stat. Ann, § 22:1220 which states that an insurer’s failure to pay any claim within sixty days after receipt of satisfactory proof of loss constitutes a breach of the insurer’s duties if it is shown that “such failure is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.” The Legislature did not require such proof with regard to the timely payment of settlement funds. Rather Section (B) simply requires that the insured or claimant must show that failure of an insurer to timely pay the settlement be “knowingly committed.” In the present case, Jewelers was represented by Louisiana counsel, who presumably knew the requirements of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220(B)(2), and it had.a claims department under the supervision of a corporate vice-president to monitor the insurer’s compliance with Louisiana’s laws. Accordingly, Jewelers cannot not shield itself from | t (potential liability for penalties by hiding behind its assertion that timely payment was not forthcoming because of a clerical error. See n.2, supra. This legislative enactment would ring hollow in the face of such a defense and do little, indeed if anything, to encourage timely payment of settlements.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the lower courts are reversed and set aside. This matter is remanded to the trial court for consideration of the award of penalties in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

      . Sultana never sought the award of general or special damages.

      . Bill Herrbold, Jewelers's Vice-President of claims, stated in his affidavit that, "[t]he delay in issuing the settlement check was simply a combination of our attorney's letter regarding settlement being received during my absence while on business in Seattle and being placed, without my knowledge, into the file.”

      . See e.g., Reed v. Recard, 97-2250 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/18/98), 744 So.2d 13, 19, writ denied, 98-3070 (La.2/12/99), 738 So.2d 572; Batson v. South Louisiana Med. Ctr., 97-1382 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/25/98), 724 So.2d 782, 789, writ granted in part, jmt. amended on other grounds, 98-2709 (La.1/8/99), 734 So.2d 649; Carter v. Davis, 95-2198 (La.App. 1 Cir.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 362, 364, writ denied, 96-1449 (La.6/27/97), 696 So.2d 991.

      . See e.g., Hollier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 01-0592 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/31/01), 799 So.2d 793; Becnel v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 99-2966 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/15/00), 773 So.2d 247; Genusa v. Robert, 98-449 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/14/98), 720 So.2d 166; but see Adams v. Stratton, 02-224 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/16/02), 831 So.2d 290. See also Hannover Corp. of America v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 67 F.3d 70 (5 Cir.1995); Marine Holdings, Inc. v. Paradigm Ins. Co. 2000 WL 245830 (E.D.La. 2000).

      .Because penalties were not awarded in the trial court, we are not faced with the question of whether Subsection (C) of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220 imposes a minimum penalty.

      . Although we do not rely upon the legislative history of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:1220 in our resolution of the issues presented, a detailed background on the statute may be found in Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), 694 So.2d 184 and Manuel v. Louisiana Sheriffs Risk Management Fund, 95-0406 (La.11/27/95), 664 So.2d 81.

      . Champagne v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 607 So.2d 752 (La.App. 1 Cir.1992) appears to be the first case in the First Circuit in which it was held that "the penalty provision of La. R.S. 22:1220(C) is applicable only after a showing of damages actually suffered as a result of the breach.” Champagne, 607 So.2d at 758. At that time, the appellate court offered no explanation in support of that holding.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: LPER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re Raymond Earl BOUDREAU, Jr.
    No. 2003-B-1890.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 3, 2003.

      Charles B. Plattsmier, Baton Rouge, Julie B. White, for Applicant.
    Raymond E. Boudreau, Jr., for Respondent.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

LPER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter arises from one count of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Raymond Earl Boudreau, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on suspension.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY RECORD

Before addressing the instant charges, we find it helpful to review respondent’s prior disciplinary history. Between 1998 and 1999, respondent neglected and abandoned two client matters, failed to communicate with three clients, failed to account for and return fees to one client, failed to satisfy student loan obligations and failed to cooperate with the ODC in four disciplinary investigations. Pursuant to a consent petition filed in this court, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of three years. In re: Boudreau, 00-3158 (La.1/5/01), 776 So.2d 428 (“Boudreau I ”). Respondent remains suspended under that judgment.

UNDERLYING FACTS

Donaldson Matter

In 1997, Marvin Donaldson retained respondent for a $2,000 flat fee to represent him in criminal proceedings, in which he was charged with a fourth offense of driving while intoxicated. Between June 1997 and September 1999, respondent made eleven |?court appearances and filed an appellate brief on behalf of Mr. Donaldson. Thereafter, respondent failed to make any appearances on behalf of his client. He made no effort to withdraw from the rep-reservation and instead simply abandoned Mr. Donaldson.

Failure to Cooperate

In April 2001, four months after respondent had been suspended in Boudreau I, Mr. Donaldson filed a complaint with the ODC. He maintained that he attempted to contact respondent in order to request a refund of his fee, but was unsuccessful in reaching respondent.

The ODC forwarded Mr. Donaldson’s complaint to respondent and requested he address the allegations. Respondent failed to reply to the ODC’s request. The ODC then sought to serve respondent with a subpoena compelling his appearance and production of documents at a sworn deposition, but was unable to serve him, despite six attempts to do so. On September 21, 2001, respondent faxed a letter to the ODC indicating he would respond to the complaint within five days. However, respondent failed to do so.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Formal Charges

Following its investigation, the ODC filed one count of formal charges against respondent based on his substantive misconduct in the Donaldson matter, as well as his failure to cooperate in the investigation of the Donaldson complaint. The charges allege violations of Rules 1.3 (lack of diligence), 1.4(a) (failure to keep client ^reasonably informed about the status of legal matter and failure to comply with reasonable requests for information), 1.5(f)(6) (failure to account for or refund unearned fees, and/or place disputed funds in trust) and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 9(c) (failure to respond to a lawful demand of a disciplinary authority).

Respondent failed to answer or otherwise reply to the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions. Respondent made no filing with the committee.

Recommendation of the Hearing Committee

The hearing committee found the formal charges were deemed admitted and, as such, proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee recognized respondent’s prior disciplinary record involving similar misconduct. Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee noted the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is suspension. As aggravating factors, it recognized prior discipline, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, vulnerability of the victim and indifference to making restitution. It found no mitigating factors to be present.

[¿Accordingly, the committee recommended respondent be suspended for a period of two years with the suspension commencing upon the completion of his suspension in Boudreau I. It also recommended respondent be required to attend the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School, obtain an additional five hours of continuing legal education on the subject of ethics, and provide restitution of the unearned portion of the fee with interest.

Neither party filed an objection to the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee.

Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board

The board determined respondent accepted a flat fee to perform services that he did not perform and abandoned his client in violation of Rule 1.5. It also pointed out respondent failed to appear in court on behalf of his client and failed to advise his client of such in violation of Rules 1.3 and 1.4, respectively. Finally, the board stated respondent’ s failure to respond to the complaint, especially considering his written assurance that he would, constituted a breach of Rule 8.4(g) and Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 9(c).

The board found respondent’s conduct caused harm to his client by depriving him of his funds and delaying the resolution of his legal matter. It further concluded respondent’s failure to cooperate with the ODC caused delays and expense to the disciplinary system.

Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board concluded the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a suspension from the practice of law. The board adopted the aggravating factors cited by the committee, and agreed no mitigating factors were present.

|RIn determining an appropriate sanction, the board observed the substantive misconduct occurred in 1998, during the same time period as respondent’s misconduct subject of Boudreau I, which occurred between 1998 through 1999. Relying on Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 573 So.2d 470 (La.1991), the board determined that if the underlying misconduct in this matter had been considered together with the misconduct at issue in Boudreau I, the same sanction (a three-year suspension) would have been imposed. However, it determined respondent’s failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the instant matter warranted additional discipline, as it occurred outside of the time frame of the conduct subject of Boudreau I. Accordingly, the board recommended respondent be suspended for a period of thirty days for his failure to cooperate. Additionally, it proposed respondent be required to obtain additional continuing legal education and that respondent provide an accounting and refund of all unearned fees to Mr. Donaldson.

One board member partially dissented as to the leniency of the proposed sanction for the failure to cooperate, citing the egregiousness of the misconduct in light of respondent’s past disciplinary infractions for similar misconduct.

The ODC filed an objection to the leniency of the board’s proposed sanction. Accordingly, the matter was docketed for briefing and argument in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G). Respondent did not file a brief for the court’s consideration, nor did he appear for oral argument.

| r,DISCUSSION

The deemed admitted facts in this case support the conclusion respondent neglected his chent’s legal matter, failed to communicate with his client and failed to account for or return the unearned fee. Therefore, the sole issue presented for our consideration is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct.

In determining a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La.1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and the seriousness of the offenses involved, considered in light of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La.1984).

Respondent’s abandonment of his client’s legal matter caused actual harm. Furthermore, respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation, thereby impairing the efficient operation of the disciplinary process. No mitigating factors are supported by the record; however, several aggravating factors are present. Under these circumstances, we conclude a suspension from the practice of law is the proper sanction.

In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 573 So.2d 470 (La.1991), we observed that when the underlying conduct occurs within the same period as the misconduct forming the basis for a previous sanction, the discipline imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously. The instant case presents an interesting variation on the Chatelain theme, as the substantive misconduct occurred during the same time frame as the misconduct in Boudreau I, but the failure to cooperate occurred after the Boudreau I opinion was rendered. |7Under these circumstances, we must separate the substantive misconduct from the failure to cooperate.

The substantive misconduct consists of the abandonment of a client matter. This misconduct is similar to Boudreau I, which involved, among other things, abandonment of two client matters. Had the instant abandonment charge been considered filed simultaneously with those charges forming the basis of Boudreau I, it would have only reinforced our view that a lengthy suspension was warranted to sanction respondent for his misconduct and to protect the public. Accordingly, we will adjudge respondent guilty of an additional violation which will be added to his record for consideration in the event he applies for reinstatement from Boudreau I, after becoming eligible to do so.

As to the failure to cooperate charge, we note this misconduct commenced in May 2001, five months after this court rendered its judgment in Boudreau I. Additionally, respondent was sanctioned in Boudreau I for, among other misconduct, a failure to cooperate. As such, this court’s judgment placed respondent on notice that a failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities appointed by this court will not be tolerated. Respondent’s continued failure to cooperate is, therefore, particularly egregious. See, e.g., In re: Casanova, 02-2155 (La.11/22/02), 847 So.2d 1169 (prior discipline “presented respondent with an opportunity to correct his deficiencies, but it is obvious that he did not avail himself of the chances he was given”). Under these circumstances, we find a six-month suspension, to run consecutively to the suspension imposed in Boudreau I, is an appropriate sanction for respondent’s failure to cooperate.

| «DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s brief, it is ordered that Raymond Earl Boudreau, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 24028, be adjudged of additional violations warranting a lengthy suspension for his substantive misconduct in the Donaldson matter. These violations shall be added to his record for consideration in the event he seeks reinstatement from the suspension imposed in In re: Boudreau, 00-3158 (La.1/5/01), 776 So.2d 428. For his failure to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation of the Donaldson matter, it is ordered that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. This suspension shall run consecutively to the suspension imposed in In re: Boudreau, 00-3158 (La.1/5/01), 776 So.2d 428. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

      . In November 1999, the court of appeal received notice that respondent had been declared ineligible to practice law for failure to pay bar dues and comply with his mandatory continuing legal education requirements. Accordingly, the court of appeal remanded Mr. Donaldson's case to the trial court to give him the opportunity to retain new counsel.

      . The hearing committee determined respondent violated numerous other professional rules for which he was not formally charged. The disciplinary board correctly declined to adopt the committee’s recommendation in this regard.

      . Respondent’s first evidence of a failure to cooperate was in May 2001, when he neglected to respond to the disciplinary complaint. At this time, this court had already imposed discipline in Boudreau I.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Peggy Lee BARDEN.
    No. 2003-KK-3068.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 25, 2003.
   In re Barden, Peggy Lee; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 356694; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1717.

Denied. Adequate remedy on appeal in the event of conviction.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Edmond BURNS.
    No. 2003-KH-3088.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Burns, Edmond; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 439-324.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the district court for its consideration. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jean ALEXANDER.
    No. 2003-KH-3154.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Alexander, Jean; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 442-493.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the district court for its consideration. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael LOTT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-2540.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Lott, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated October 3, 2003, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. S, Nos. 97-0229, 91-5977; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-109.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rodney SMITH.
    No. 2003-KK-2488.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Smith, Rodney; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 03-1004; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 2003-K-0900.

Not considered. Not timely filed.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Willie Lee TART v. Burl CAIN, Warden.
    No. 2002-KP-2132.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Tart, Willie Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 49,458.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Eddie MITCHELL.
    No. 2002-KP-2283.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 6308-92.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michelle NICKS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3089.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Nicks, Michelle; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 396-381; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-1657.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael LEBLANC v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3143.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re LeBlanc, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 4-91-739; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 00 KW 1252.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Emmett SPOONER, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3144.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Spooner, Emmett Sr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 940-84; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 0998.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert HILLIARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3152.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Hilliard, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 272-836.

Denied. Repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A).


text:
    STATE ex rel. William O. SILVA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3155.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Silva, William O.;- — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 371-003; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-1895.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eugene JOSEPH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3156.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Joseph, Eugene; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 381-195; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K — 1878.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert GRIFFIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3169.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Griffin, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 89785; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002-KW-1553.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Byron NEAL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3175.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Neal, Byron; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 9955; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002-KW-0921.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joshua HOBSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3176.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Hobson, Joshua; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 6-97-847; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002-KW-1468.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Willie D. BURDEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3177.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Burden, Willie D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 311,097, 315,123, 315,124; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 KW 2935.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lawrence HENSLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3178.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Hensley, Lawrence; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 99-7542; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-1032.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Larry BAKER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3179.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Baker, Larry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Morehouse, 4th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 86-580; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 36623-KH, 36436-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Mark C. ERIE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KP-0713.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Erie, Mark C.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 02-160405; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 2656.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lyonell Oscar JOHNSON.
    No. 2003-K-0714.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Johnson, Lyonell Oscar; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 306785; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 1459.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Kayren HARRIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KP-0745.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Harris, Kayren G.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 339720; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 2151.

Deraed.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Hao Chi NGUYEN v. Burl CAIN.
    No. 2003-KP-0851.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Nguyen, Hao Chi; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 268858; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0065.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Victor DURDEN.
    No. 2003-K-1350.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Durden, Victor; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 207,087; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36,842.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony ROBINSON.
    No. 2003-KO-1361.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Robinson, Anthony;. — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 00-6416; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KA-1253.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jason HACKER.
    No. 2003-KO-1362.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Hacker, Jason; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 12-99-333; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 1474.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jaron AUSBON.
    No. 2003-KO-1363.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Ausbon, Jaron; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 06-99-909 VII; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 1403.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Erran FLEMING and Kevin Trainor.
    No. 2003-K-1391.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Trainor, Kevin; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 401-182; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-KA-1700.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Erran FLEMING and Kevin Trainor.
    No. 2003-K-1393.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Fleming, Erran et al.; Trainor, Kevin; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 401-182; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-KA-1700.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Terrance FORD.
    No. 2003-K-1401.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Ford, Terrance; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, Nos. 395-385, 396-322; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2002-KA-1394, 2002-KA-1642.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lincoln J. CARMOUCHE.
    No. 2003-K-1405.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Carmouche, Lincoln J.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 111,-814B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 02-1375.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Delmar M. BRADFORD.
    No. 2003-K-1410.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Bradford, Delmar; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 416-359; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-KA-1452.

Denied.


text:
    MARY MOE, L.L.C., Nancy Noe, L.L.C., Peter Poe, L.L.C., and Richard Roe, L.L.C., Louisiana Limited Liability Companies Proceeding Pseudonymously v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF ETHICS.
    No. 2003-C-2200.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Moe, Mary L.L.C. et al.; Noe, Nancy L.L.C.; Poe, Peter L.L.C.; Roe, Richard; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 2002-11000; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-CA-2135.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Herman ROGERS.
    No. 2003-KK-2227.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Rogers, Herman; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 01-02-243; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0696.

Denied.


text:
    Jesse Ann BURNETT, Individually, etc., et al. v. Michael LEWIS, et al. Lisa Zachmann, et al. v. Michael Lewis, et al. Donna S. Hinojosa, et al. Jessie Ann Burnett, Individually, etc., et al. v. Michael Lewis, et al.
    No. 2003-C-2264.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Burnett, Jessie Ann Individually & as Tutrix et al.; Burnett, James L. Jr., Succession of; Hinojosa, Roberto; Hinojo-sa, Donna S.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, Nos. 98-12733, 99-06208, 99-4740; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2002-CA-0020, 2002-CA-0021, 2002-CA-0022, 2002-CA-1573.

Denied.


text:
    John Melvin MITCHELL v. TERREBONNE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD and Gulf Coast Risk Services.
    No. 2003-C-2275.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Mitchell, John M.;- — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation, Dist-9, No. 01-06812; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 1021.

Denied.


text:
    LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY COMPANY and Henry L. Johnson, Jr. v. MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION.
    No. 2003-CC-2301.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Michelin Tire Corp. n/k/a; Miehe-lin North America, Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 26048; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 0809.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Walter A. GLOD, Jr., M.D. v. W. Gregory BAKER, et al.
    No. 2003-C-2482.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Viviano, Louis B.; LAF Foods Inc.; CBC International Inc.; CPCI Incorporated; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 975864, 980481, 980482, 980483; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). 02-988, 02-989, 02-990, 02-991, 03-206, 03-207, 03-208, 03-209.

Denied.


text:
    Robert LEE v. RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Builders Transport, Inc. and Michael Miley. Robert Lee v. Clarendon National Insurance Company, Old Hickory Trucking, and Alfred Leonard.
    No. 2003-C-2483.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Lee, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, Nos. 1998-15637, 98-15638; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s).' 2003-CA-0117, 03-CA-0118.

Denied.


text:
    Loretta SIMPSON v. James Ray STEVENSON.
    No. 2003-C-2489.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Stevenson, James Ray; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 443,041-D; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,164-CA.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    Laura YOUNG, Individually and on Behalf of Gerald Young, A Minor v. LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al.
    No. 2003-C-2491.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Young, Laura et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 99-732; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA OS-65.

Denied.


text:
    Burt R. BRATTON v. Julie M. BRATTON.
    No. 2003-C-2494.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Bratton, Bert R.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 95-12883; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 2124.

Denied.


text:
    Patti Louanne Denmon Pope and John POPE v. Matthew L. PRUNTY and City of Shreveport.
    No. 2003-C-2496.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Prunty, Matthew L.; Shreveport City of; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 447,086; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,395-CA.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    M.C., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of His Minor Child, V.C., and K.C. v. F.L., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of His Minor Child, J.L., and B.L.
    No. 2003-CC-2510.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re M.C.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2000-12045; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 1062.

Denied. The result is correct.


text:
    Angel D. KITISHIAN v. KENYAN ENTERPRISES, INC.
    No. 2003-CC-2535.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Kenyan Enterprises, Inc.;' — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 74,-926(B); to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 03-00997.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    John M. REAUX, M.D. v. The LOUISIANA BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS.
    No. 2003-C-2546.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Reaux, John M. M.D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 2001-5328; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-CA-0906.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas WALTERS.
    No. 2003-KK-2547.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Walters, Thomas; — Defendant-Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides; 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 268140; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 03-01000.

Denied.


text:
    Judith ST. MARTIN v. Shelia SWEENEY, et al.
    No. 2003-C-2548.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re St. Martin, Judith; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 92-5105; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0434.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., recused.


text:
    Margaret K. PIPPIN and Shannon P. Pippin v. OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF FLORIDA, INC., d/b/a Outback Steakhouse.
    No. 2003-CC-2553.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Outback Steakhouse; Outback Steakhouse/Florida Inc. d/b/a;- — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2001-10896; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003-CW-0864.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin YOUNG.
    No. 2003-KK-2554.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Young, Kevin; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 401,793; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1570.

Denied.


text:
    William R. ROBINSON and Michelle L. Robinson, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, Leanna Robinson, David Robinson and Lynn Robinson v. NORTH AMERICAN SALT COMPANY.
    No. 2003-C-2581.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re North American Salt Company;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 102360-A; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 1869.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Donald WOODS, Donna W. Bringol, Ritchie Woods and Russell G. Woods v. STATE of Louisiana through the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT and Arnold Construction Company.
    No. 2003-C-2584.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Woods, Donald et al.; Bringol, Donna W.; Woods, Ritchie; Woods, Russell G.; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Oua-chita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 00-4142; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,185-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Casey BILLIESON, et al. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.
    No. 2003-CC-2586.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Housing Authority of New Orleans; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 94-19231; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-0968.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph PIERCE.
    No. 2003-KK-2588.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Pierce, Joseph; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 5-02-157; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1064.

Denied.


text:
    Jessie Ann BURNETT, Individually, etc., et al. v. Michael LEWIS, et al. Lisa Zachmann, et al. v. Michael Lewis, et al. Donna S. Hinojosa, et al. v. Michael Lewis, et al. Jessie Ann Burnett, Individually, etc., et al. v. Michael Lewis, et al.
    No. 2003-C-2740.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Zachmann, Lisa; Zachmann, Michael; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, Nos. 99-06208, 99^4740, 98-12733; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2002-CA-0022, 2002-CA-0021, 2002-CA-0020.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donald R. WYATT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-3100.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 26, 2003.
   In re Wyatt, Donald R.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. W-03-1-14; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1218.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    Claudia Reynolds GENTRY, et al. v. Johnny R. BIDDLE, Jr., M.D.
    No. 2003-CC-3227.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 1, 2003.
   In re Louisiana Patients Compensation Fund;- — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Cal-casieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2000-2756; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 03-01549.

Granted. Although the settlement by the health care provider establishes proof of liability for the malpractice and for damages of at least $100,000, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the admitted malpractice caused damages in excess of $100,000. Graham v. Willis-Knighton Med. Ctr., 97-0188 (La.9/9/97), 699 So.2d 365. The opinion of the medical review panel and testimony of the panel members is relevant and admissible for the purpose of allowing the Patients’ Compensation Fund to defend this claim. See La. R.S. 40:1299.47(H). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court granting plaintiffs motion in limine is reversed.

KIMBALL, J., would deny the writ.


text:
    In re James Wallace SPRADLING, II.
    No. 2003-B-2381.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 3, 2003.
   In re James Wallace Spradling, II; Applying for Rehearing of an Order of this Court dated November 13, 2003.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    Nancy Davis JUDSON, Secretary/Treasurer Hall's Mortuary, Inc. v. Hall DAVIS, IV, President Hall's Mortuary, Inc.
    No. 2003-CC-2896.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 9, 2003.
   In re Judson, Nancy Davis Secretary;— Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 32,738; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 1811.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the court of appeal for consideration of the trial court’s ruling denying plaintiffs motion for suspensive appeal. In all other respects, the application is denied.

WEIMER, J., would deny the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of N. S.
    No. 2003-CC-3219.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 10, 2003.
   In re Montemayor, Monica; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, City Court of Slidell Wards 8 & 9, No. 2003JS 01146; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 2194.

Granted. As stated by the court of appeal, the “estimated costs appear excessive.” The case is remanded to the trial court for a more specific finding regarding the cost of the transcript. The trial court is to make a determination of the estimated number of pages of the transcript and review the court reporter’s per-page charge..


text:
    Greg PIZZOLATO and Renee Burns Pizzolato v. QUALITY PLUMBING and Essex Insurance Company.
    No. 2003-CC-2683.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 10, 2003.
   In re Essex Ins. Co.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 135,717; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 0927.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    ETHEL KIDD REAL ESTATE, INC. v. Thomas ABRAMS and John Brown.
    No. 2003-OC-3380.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 10, 2003.
   In re Abrams, Thomas et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, First City Court of Orleans, No. 03-05850; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CM-2145.

Denied on the showing made.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Elfredroe LOVE v. AAA TEMPORARIES, INC., et al.
    No. 2003-C-1460.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Apex Oil Company, Inc.; Applying for Rehearing of an Order of this Court dated October 17, 2003, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. J, No. 379,498; Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 0615.

Rehearing denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the rehearing.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-2840.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Brown, James; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts order dated October 17, 2003; Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 45,193, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36576-KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lee HUDSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2181.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Hudson, Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated September 5, 2003; Parish of Tangi-pahoa, 21st Judicial District Court. Div. “A” No. 97300.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Donald A. ROSS.
    No. 2003-KH-2475.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Ross, Donald A.; — Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated September 26, 2003; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, Nos. 76393, 79728,

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Jennifer Wesley WHITLOW v. AUDUBON INDEMNITY COMPANY, Flower’s Baking. Company of Baton Rouge, Inc., ABC Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Harris Chevrolet, Inc. d/b/a Brian Harris Audi, Douglas D. Wills, Jr., and Emilie Blythe Hill.
    No. 2003-C-2609.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Whitlow, Jennifer Wesley; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 90864; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA1737.

Not considered. Not timely filed.


text:
    James E. GRINSTAFF v. WALGREENS LOUISIANA CO., INC., Walgreens Healthcare Plus, Inc. and Kemper Casualty Insurance Companies.
    No. 2003-C-2659.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Grinstaff, James E.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 2001-4192; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0527.

Writ not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael NEWSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3039.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Newson, Michael;- — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 211,932; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36844-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Floyd Lee CATHRON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3091.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Cathron, Floyd Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 217,983; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36706-KW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald MARSHALL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3150.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Marshall, Ronald; — -Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 396-770; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-1769.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Douglas SEPULVADO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3154.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Sepulvado, Douglas; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 205,476 & 207,294; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36877-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Baron KAYLO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3172.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Kaylo, Baron; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 4-96-537; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 1493.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles CARTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3181.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Carter, Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 59,370; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2000 KW 1242.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert COURSE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3183.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Course, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 419-262; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2001-KA-1812.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert COOPER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3184.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Cooper, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 255879; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 0210.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Antonio GALLAGHER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3185.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Gallagher, Antonio;' — -Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, Nos. 98-7141, 98-7142, 99-5019; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-1026.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Carl SIMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3187.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Sims, Carl; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 17,340; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36705-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. McKinley PHIPPS, Jr.
    No. 2003-K-0692.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Phipps, McKinley Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 316809; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 0890.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dwayne PUCKETT, a/k/a Dee Puckett, a/k/a Dwayne Brown.
    No. 2003-KO-0891.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Puckett, Dwayne a/k/a; Puckett, Dee a/k/a; Brown, Dwayne; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 01-2926; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KA-997.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Denise J. KLASEK.
    No. 2003-KO-1359.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Klasek, Denise J.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 102899; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,-114-KA.

Denied.


text:
    Angel Sonnier MCGEE v. OMNI INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2003-C-1375.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Omni Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 00-G-3281-D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 02-1012.

Denied.


text:
    Angel Sonnier MCGEE v. OMNI INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2003-C-1382.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re McGee, Angel Sonnier; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 00-G-3281-D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 02-1012.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Travis GLOSSON.
    No. 2003-K-1398.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Glosson, Travis; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Morehouse, 4th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 011851F; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36,-999-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Fredrick WILBERT.
    No. 2003-KO-1441.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Wilbert, Fredrick; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 97-2116; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KA-1261.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy P. MACCRACKEN.
    No. 2003-K-1474.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re MacCracken, Timothy P.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 01-4169; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KA-1163.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael D. MOORE.
    No. 2003-KO-1480.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Moore, Michael D.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 19562-02; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-16.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., concurs. See 2003 La. Acts 821. Result is correct.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Leonardo HEREDIA.
    No. 2003-K-1506.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Heredia, Leonardo; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 98-2948; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KA-1162.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Uralle PRICE and David Honore.
    No. 2003-K-1517.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Price, Uralle et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 231-414; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-KA-0360.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Terence GILLIAM.
    No. 2003-KO-1519.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Gilliam, Terence; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 203,147; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36,794-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James G. BRYANT, Jr.
    No. 2003-K-1562.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Bryant, James G. Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 320697; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 2285.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Latroy HOWARD.
    No. 2003-KO-1571.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Howard, Latroy; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 100,330; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36,-929-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Fredrick F. WILBERT.
    No. 2003-KO-1573.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Wilbert, Fredrick F.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 97-2116; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KA-1261.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Corey SMITH a/k/a Corey Jackson.
    No. 2003-K-1582.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Smith, Corey a/k/a; Jackson, Corey; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 417-684; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-KA-1813.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth DILOSA.
    No. 2003-K-1601.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Dilosa, Kenneth; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 287205; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 KA 0024.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert BONDS.
    No. 2003-KO-1610.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Bonds, Robert; — -Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 429-919; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-KA-2439.

Denied.


text:
    Jessica ANDERSON v. Barry ANDERSON, Mary Anderson, Louisiana Department of Social Services.
    No. 2003-CC-2273.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Social Services Dept, of; Louisiana State of; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 50,200; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 2003-C-718.

Denied.


text:
    KAPPA LOYAL, L.L.C. v. PLAISANCE DRAGLINE & DREDGING COMPANY, INC.
    No. 2003-C-2348.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Plaisance Dragline & Dredging Co., Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 56,324; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-124.

Denied.


text:
    The ESTATE OF Emmett HICKERSON, Jr., Valorie Hickerson and Adoracion Hickerson v. George ZIMMERMAN, Orleans Parish School Board, and National Union Fire Insurance.
    No. 2003-C-2354.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Zimmerman, George; Orleans Parish School Board; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 99-16961; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-CA-1195.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Russell C. IVERSTINE v. ALBEMARLE CORP. and Travelers Insurance.
    No. 2003-C-2583.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Iverstine, Russell C.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 05, No. 01-06784; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 2555.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    John M. POOLE v. MADISONVILLE BOATYARD, LTD., Richard A. Fields and Colleen Collier Fields.
    No. 2003-C-2590.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Poole, John M.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2002-10623; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 2367.

Denied.


text:
    Elmer Alvis SUMMERS v. Horace "Clint" PRAY.
    No. 2003-C-2593.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Pray, Horace “Clint”; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2000-13483; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 1840.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Louis ALFONSO, Rose Marie Alfonso and Elouise Seay v. James "Bubba" LAUDERDALE and Sonya Lauderdale and the City of Hammond.
    No. 2003-C-2594.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Lauderdale, James “Bubba” et al.; Lauderdale, Sonya; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 9703432; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002-CA-0726.

Denied.


text:
    Johnny Mac BOND v. Alton Ray BOND.
    No. 2003-C-2602.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Bond, Johnny Mac; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jackson, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 28,198; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,-264-CA.

Denied.


text:
    LAMOCO INC., et al. v. Howard H. HUGHES.
    No. 2003-C-2603.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Hughes, Howard H.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. C-677-01; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 02-1498.

Denied.


text:
    MCKOIN STARTER AND GENERATOR, INC. v. SNAP-ON CREDIT CORPORATION and Sun Electric Corporation.
    No. 2003-C-2605.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Snap-on Credit Corporation; Sun Electric Corporation; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 96-4808; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,-210-CA.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    BROOKS WELL SERVICING, INC. and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL, INC. and Sonat Exploration Company.
    No. 2003-C-2606.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 36201; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36,723-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Lucille MACK v. CERRO COPPER TUBE and Constitution State Services Co.
    No. 2003-C-2607.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Mack, Lucille; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 1W, No. 01-01036; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,319-WCA.

Denied.


text:
    Patricia ARNOLD v. William A. BASS, II and Richard M. Moore, III.
    No. 2003-C-2615.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Arnold, Patricia; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 477,777; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 2109.

Denied.


text:
    Salvador CULOTTA, Mark Johnson and Computer Networking Specialists, Inc. v. FACTFINDERS, INC. and Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations, Inc.
    No. 2003-C-2617.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, Nos. 565-462, 571-807; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-C-908.

Denied.


text:
    Kim SAACKS v. MOHAWK CARPET CORPORATION.
    No. 2003-C-2632.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Mohawk Carpet Corporation;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 2001-15173; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0386.

Denied.


text:
    Francis Jenkins SULLIVAN v. Harold MURPHY, et al. Rachel Medlin v. Harold Murphy, et al.
    No. 2003-C-2635.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Medlin, Rachel; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 99-117, 99-389; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 37,473-CA, 377,474-CA.

Denied.


text:
    James L. DAGGS v. Bobby MARTIN & Gulf Inland Contractors, Inc.
    No. 2003-C-2636.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Daggs, James L.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 125,268; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 1799.

Denied.


text:
    Robert L. LUCIEN, et al. v. AUTOMOTIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2003-CC-2637.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Hattier, Craig; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 90-20001; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 03-C-1392.

Denied.


text:
    James Shaun DEVILLE v. Glenn W. QUEBEDEAUX, et al.
    No. 2003-C-2639.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Deville, James Shaun; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 01-1607-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. OS-MS.

Denied.


text:
    Alga MILLER, Pearl Miller, Dalton Miller, Vergis Adams, Rita Adams, Anita Miller, Wilbert Miller and Opal Miller v. SUPERIOR SHIPYARD AND FABRICATION, INC., Chris J. Guidry, Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Ulysses Hunter, T.T.C. Illinois, Inc., Lexington Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company.
    No. 2003-C-2643.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Lexington Ins. Co.; — -Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 85179; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 CA 2907.

Denied.


text:
    Frederick JOHNSON v. T & LNAS/DOMINO SUGAR.
    No. 2003-C-2648.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re T & LNAS/Domino Sugar; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist-8, No. 01-02712; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0058.

Denied.


text:
    Francis Jenkins SULLIVAN v. Harold MURPHY, et al. Rachel Medlin v. Harold Murphy, et al.
    No. 2003-C-2650.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Sullivan, Francis Jenkins; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 99-117, 99-389; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 37,473-CA, 37,474-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Richard CADOR v. NEAL'S CYPRESS INN and Commercial Union Insurance Company.
    No. 2003-C-2657.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Cador, Richard; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation Dish-5, No. 98-07517; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 1976.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Robert E. SHADOIN v. Denise Jordan SHADOIN.
    No. 2003-OC-2658.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Shadoin, Denise Jordan; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 45,293; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36,311-CA.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    Suzanne Samuel BOOTH; Thomas Norris Samuel, III; Warren Guy Samuel and Jonathan Smith Samuel v. MADISON RIVER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
    No. 2003-C-2661.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Booth, Suzanne S.; Samuel, Thomas N. Ill; Samuel, Warren G.; Samuel, Jonathan S.; Aldridge, Lynn J. Jr.; Al-dridge, Carolyn J.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 479,561; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 0288.

Denied.


text:
    Sonya ROBERTS, Derisha Rhea, William Mingo and Lorenzo Thomas v. Janice DIGGS, Calvin Diggs, Sr. and Their Insurer, Allstate Indemnity Insurance Company.
    No. 2003-CC-2662.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re State Farm Automobile Ins. Co.;— Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 545-177; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-C-961.

Denied.


text:
    MARYELLAND, INC., Ansil N. Simmons, Jr., and Felix H. Savoie, Jr. v. Walter R. LOBDELL, et al.
    No. 2003-CC-2663.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Lobdell, Walter R. et al.; Fran-cione, Thomas E.; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Assumption, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 26,594; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 1048.

Denied.


text:
    Estella GWINN, et al. v. Debra HOLIDAY d/b/a Debra's Medical Transport and Its Insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Co.
    No. 2003-CC-2669.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Holiday, Debra d/b/a; Debra’s Medical Transport; Scottsdale Insurance Co.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 031742; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 1357.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    VANN LANDRY, INC. d/b/a Neighborhood Finance v. John B. TRAVIS, Commissioner, Office of Financial Institutions, Department of Economic Development, State of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-C-2671.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Vann Landry, Inc. d/b/a; Neighborhood Finance; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 484-930; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 1501.

Denied.


text:
    Patricia ARNOLD v. William A. BASS, II and Richard M. Moore, III.
    No. 2003-C-2672.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Moore, Richard M. Ill; Westport Ins. Corp.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 477,777; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 2109.

Denied.


text:
    Gerald "Buzz" BREAUX, as President of the Parish of Lafourche v. LAFOURCHE PARISH COUNCIL.
    No. 2003-C-2678.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Breaux, Gerald “Buzz”; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of LaFourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 91285; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 1422.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    MILL CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED v. Phillip W. MANUEL and Carolyn Barr Manuel.
    No. 2003-C-2679.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Manuel, Phillip et al.; Manuel, Carolyn Barr; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 33,921; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 2239.

Denied.


text:
    6444 ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, et al.
    No. 2003-C-2681.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Baton Rouge City of; E. Baton Rouge Parish of; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 486,747; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 1779.

Denied.


text:
    Vernon John COPOUS and Safeway Insurance Company v. MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY and Brian Harris Pontiac-GMC.
    No. 2003-C-2684.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Mid-Continent Casualty Company et al.; Brian Harris Pontiac-GMC; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 99-13937; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 1320.

Denied.


text:
    Ashley ORLANDO, et ux. v. R. Harlan STRUBLE, M.D. and St. Tammany Parish Hospital.
    No. 2003-CC-2685.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Struble, R. Harlan M. D.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 97-11885; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 0459.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James R. SKIPPER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-3083.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Skipper, James R.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 01-2396, 01-2397; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). 03-842, 03-844, 03-845.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Reginald PICQUET.
    No. 2003-KK-3109.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Picquet, Reginald; — -Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 435-173; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 03-K-1684.

Denied.


text:
    Wanda W. BOWIE v. Cephas BOWIE, Jr.
    No. 2003-CC-3140.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Bowie, Wanda W.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Grant, 35th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 00014866; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 03-01307.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darren WILLIAMS.
    No. 2003-KH-3241.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 12, 2003.
   In re Williams, Darren; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 438-708; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1653.

Denied. District court has acted. Moot.