author: J^PER CURIAM.

text:
    In re Rhea H. WOODS.
    No. 2004-B-1543.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

J^PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Rhea H. Woods, a disbarred attorney.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1989. Her first disciplinary infraction occurred in 2001, when she was admonished by the disciplinary board for failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation.

A far more serious disciplinary proceeding against respondent came before this court in 2003. That proceeding involved numerous acts of professional misconduct committed by respondent against several different clients beginning in 1995 and continuing through 1999. Among other things, respondent’s actions involved three instances of conversion of client funds.

Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC filed a joint petition for consent discipline in this court, seeking respondent’s disbarment. This court granted the petition and disbarred respondent. In re: Woods, 02-2615 (La.1/31/03), 841 So.2d 713 (“Woods 7”).

| ^Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at issue in the present proceeding.

UNDERLYING FACTS

In November 1998, respondent negotiated a $102,500 settlement on behalf of two minors, Brandon Antoine and Brinay Turner, arising out of the wrongful death of their mother. Respondent indicated that she would invest the settlement funds for the benefit of the minors, but she never obtained a court order authorizing the disbursement of the funds. Instead, she retained the funds and converted them to her own use.

In March 2002, respondent’s clients, through their new attorney, filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint. The minors’ new attorney also filed a lawsuit against respondent. In response to the lawsuit, respondent filed bankruptcy, listing the minors and their guardians as her only creditors.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

On June 11, 2003, the ODC filed one count of formal charges against respondent, alleging that her conduct violated Rules 1.15(a)(b) (safekeeping property of clients or third persons) and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent was personally served with the formal charges on June 25, 2003. She failed to answer or otherwise reply to the formal charges. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3), the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence. No formal hearing was held, but the parties were[3given an opportunity to file with the hearing committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Recommendation

Based on the deemed admitted facts, the hearing committee found respondent violated Rules 1.15(a) and (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged in the formal charges. As to Rule' 8.4(c), the committee made a more generalized finding, stating that “[rjespondent violated Rule 8.4 by engaging in conduct that was essentially criminal and that reflected adversely on her honesty, trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer.”

The committee determined that respondent violated duties owed to her clients and the legal profession. Respondent acted intentionally and caused injury to her clients. Considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the baseline sanction is disbarment.

As aggravating factors, the committee recognized respondent’s prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, vulnerability of the victims, and indifference to making restitution. The committee found no mitigating factors.

Under these circumstances, the committee recommended respondent be disbarred.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

The disciplinary board found that the deemed admitted facts in the record support the conclusion that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged in the formal charges. Based on these facts, the board determined that | ¿respondent violated duties owed to her clients and to the public. It concluded she failed to safeguard her clients’ settlement funds, failed to maintain her personal honesty and integrity and acted intentionally when she converted her clients’ settlement funds, thus causing them actual harm. Under these circumstances, the board concluded the appropriate baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is disbarment.

As aggravating factors, the board recognized respondent’s dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, vulnerability of the victims, substantial experience in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution. The board found no mitigating factors.

Following the reasoning of this court in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 573 So.2d 470 (La.1991), the board observed that the instant misconduct occurred within the same time frame as the misconduct at issue in Woods I and therefore, the sanction should be determined based on the sanction which would have been imposed if both cases had been before the court simultaneously. Had this court considered the instant charges together with the charges in Woods I, the board speculated that we may have imposed permanent disbarment. In support, the board relied on Guideline 1 of the permanent disbarment guidelines found in Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix E, which provides for permanent disbarment when an attorney engages in “repeated or multiple instances of intentional conversion of client funds with substantial harm.” The board observed that if the conversion of client funds in the instant case had been considered together with the three instances of conversion of client funds in Woods I, it is likely that this court would have imposed the harsher sanction of permanent disbarment.

| ..¡Accordingly, the board recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s recommendation.

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters come within the original jurisdiction of this court. La. Const. art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Quaid, 94-1316 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 343; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Boutall, 597 So.2d 444 (La.1992).

In the instant matter, respondent did not answer the formal charges. As a result, the factual allegations contained within the formal charges were deemed admitted by operation of Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). We conclude these deemed admitted facts, combined with other evidence in the record, is sufficient to support the conclusion that respondent converted and failed to account for client funds in violation of Rule 1.15 and engaged in dishonest or fraudulent conduct in violation of Rule 8.4(c). See In re: Donnan, 01-3058 (La.1/10/03), 838 So.2d 715.

Having found professional misconduct, we now turn to consideration of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct. In determining an appropriate sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the pub-lie, 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 ease and the seriousness of the offenses involved, considered in light of any aggravating and 1 ^mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La.1984).

Respondent’s willful conversion of a substantial amount of funds belonging to her minor clients, combined with her fraudulent representation that she would invest these funds for the benefit of her minor clients, is among the most serious professional misconduct a lawyer can commit. The baseline sanction for such misconduct is unquestionably disbarment. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, 486 So.2d 116 (La.1986).

Nonetheless, the disciplinary board urges that we not consider the instant misconduct in isolation, but address it in conjunction with the misconduct in Woods I, which occurred within the same general time frame. The concept of simultaneously considering prior misconduct with new charges based on conduct occurring at the same time as earlier misconduct originated in our opinion in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 573 So.2d 470, 471 n. 2 (La.1991), in which we explained:

Since the attorney-respondent cannot control the timing of the institution of disciplinary proceedings, it is generally inappropriate to disbar a previously disbarred attorney an additional time when the violations at issue occurred before or concurrently with the violations which resulted in the initial disbarment. When a second disciplinary proceeding against an attorney involves misconduct which occurred during the same time period as the first proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously. See 1 Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct 466 (1984); Matter of Thompson, 492 A.2d 866 (D.C.App.1985).

In Chatelain, we were concerned that it would be potentially unfair for a lawyer to receive a greater sanction simply because of the timing of the prosecution. However, as the jurisprudence has evolved, we have also recognized that the lawyer should not benefit in cases where it is obvious the cumulative effect of the new-Iyjcharged7 misconduct and the prior misconduct would have caused us to impose a greater sanction had we been aware of that misconduct at the time we rendered our initial judgment. See, e.g., In re: Holley, 03-1366 (La.10/3/03), 856 So.2d 1197 (“[h]ad we considered the instant misconduct together with the misconduct in Holley I, it is likely we would have imposed a more severe sanction, probably in the range of eighteen months, with some period of deferral and probation.”). In short, our overriding consideration has been to determine the appropriate overall sanction for the lawyer’s misconduct, ignoring any distortions which may be caused by the timing of the filing of formal charges.

Applying that reasoning to the matter sub judice, we recognize that the instant charge, based on misconduct which occurred in 1998, is part of the continuing series of professional breaches by respondent spanning the period between 1995-1999, which we first addressed in Woods I. To consider this charge in isolation from the similar charges in Woods I would prevent us from recognizing respondent’s pattern of serious misconduct. Accordingly, we find it appropriate to consider the instant charges together with the charges at issue in Woods I and determine an appropriate sanction as if both cases were before the court simultaneously.

In Woods I, we found respondent engaged in three instances of conversion, in the amount of $30,000, $52,000 and $38,000. The sole mitigating factors were partial restitution and personal problems during the time of the misconduct.

In the instant proceeding, the amount of funds converted (in excess of $100,000) is much greater than the funds converted from any single client in Woods I. The present victims are in a more vulnerable position than the victims in Woods I, as the victims in the instant case are minors deprived of a recovery stemming from the wrongful death of their mother. Respondent has not made any effort at restitution; [sto the contrary, she has sought bankruptcy protection in an effort to shield herself from the payment of restitution.

In Appendix E to Supreme Court Rule XIX, we set forth guidelines illustrating the types of conduct which might warrant permanent disbarment. Guideline 1 applies to “repeated or multiple instances of intentional conversion of client funds with substantial harm.” The instant charge of conversion combined with the three prior instances of conversion demonstrates respondent willfully engaged in repeated or multiple instances of conversion of client funds resulting in substantial harm to her clients. While all instances of conversion are serious, respondent’s calculated decision to victimize her minor clients by converting funds recovered based on their mother’s wrongful death is particularly reprehensible and demonstrates a clear lack of moral fitness on the part of respondent. Had we been aware of the instant misconduct at the time we considered Woods I, we would have imposed permanent disbarment.

Accordingly, we will accept the disciplinary board’s recommendation and permanently disbar respondent from the practice of law in Louisiana.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that the name of Rhea H. Woods, Louisiana Bar Roll number 19840, be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that her license to practice law in the State of Louisiana be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be 19permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law in this state. Respondent is ordered to provide complete accountings and full restitution to her victims. 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.

      . The misconduct forming the basis for the instant proceeding arose during this same general time frame, as will be discussed in more detail later in our opinion.

      . As stated earlier, in addition to her disbarment in Woods I, respondent was also admonished by the disciplinary board in 2001 for failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation.

      . Because Woods I arose as a petition for consent discipline, we would have rejected that petition as unduly lenient, with the clear implication that permanent disbarment was the appropriate sanction.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: | .PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re Logan L. NICHOLS.
    No. 2004-B-1455.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

| .PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Logan L. Nichols, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 3, 2003, the United States Attorney filed a single count bill of information in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana charging respondent and others with trading on material, non-public information regarding the common stock of American Waste Services, Inc. On February 13, 2003, respondent pleaded guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The underlying facts of the criminal | ¡.conviction are not in dispute, having been stipulated to by respondent and the Government as part of a plea agreement.

Respondent has been a long-time friend and business associate of William Roth-rock, the Senior Vice President of Business Development at USA Waste Services, Inc. On February 6,1998, American Waste agreed to be acquired by USA Waste. On February 5, 1998, the day before the public announcement of the merger, Mr. Rothrock telephoned respondent and communicated to him material, non-public information about the acquisition. Within approximately twenty minutes of the call, respondent purchased 100,000 shares of American Waste stock based upon the tip he had received. Four days later, on February 9, 1998, respondent sold his shares and realized a profit of $179,850.

On March 9, 1998, respondent had a second telephone conversation with Mr. Rothrock. During this conversation Mr. Rothrock communicated to respondent material, non-public information about USA Waste’s plan to merge with Waste Management, Inc. Based on this tip, respondent purchased 10,000 shares of Waste Management common stock. Two days later, on March 11, 1998, respondent sold his shares and realized a profit of $50,625.

Respondent has stipulated that he and Mr. Rothrock conspired to commit securities fraud. He also admitted that he knew the information he had received from Mr. Rothrock “was communicated to me in breach of a duty William A. Rothrock owed to USA Waste.”

| ¡¡Respondent's illegal conduct was also the subject of an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Following its investigation, the SEC filed a complaint against respondent and others in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. By consent judgment dated November 8, 2001 in the matter entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. William A. Rothrock, IV, et al., number H-01-3732 on the docket of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, respondent was ordered to disgorge a total of $851,637.01 in profits from his illegal conduct and pre-judgment interest. Respondent paid this sum on November 21, 2001. Respondent was further ordered to pay a civil penalty of $461,803.50, which has also been satisfied.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

On May 9, 2003, the ODC filed one count of formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conviction of a criminal offense constitutes a violation of Rules 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer) and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent answered the formal charges and admitted his conviction, but requested a hearing for the purpose of determining an appropriate sanction.

Review of the Record

When this matter proceeded to a formal hearing on September 24, 2003, the ODC introduced portions of the record of respondent’s federal criminal proceeding in support of the formal charges. Respondent was the only witness to testify in Person before the hearing committee, but included in the documentary evidence Rsubmitted by respondent are several letters attesting to his good character and reputation in the community.

In his testimony, respondent expressed remorse for his involvement in insider trading, and in particular for the effect the resulting proceedings have had on his family. He also testified that his criminal conduct was not related to the practice of law. On cross-examination, respondent admitted that when he gave a sworn statement to the Securities and Exchange Commission in November 1998, he testified that he “picked up on the stock deal” on his own, without having received a tip from Mr. Rothrock; it was not until the SEC told him about the evidence in its possession that he admitted what he had done:

Q. So at some time between November of ’98 when the statement was taken in ’98 and 2001, you decided to become candid with the SEC when you hadn’t been before, is that correct?
A. I think that’s correct, yes.
Q. And you decided to become candid with the SEC basically because you knew what it was that they could prove, is that correct?
A. I think that’s a fair statement, yes.
Q. You didn’t on your own go to the SEC and say, “I’m sorry. I engaged in this sort of conduct,” and when they first contacted you, you didn’t for want of a better set of words admit to what you’d done, did you?
A. No.
Q. You told them a story at first, correct? You told them a different story, one that was not accurate, is that true?
A. That’s correct.

[T. pp. 38-39]

| .^Respondent further admitted that on both of the occasions on which he received inside information from Mr. Rothrock he passed that information along to other individuals, each of whom traded on the tip. When asked why he knowingly traded on inside information, respondent admitted that he did so to make money but could otherwise offer no explanation; he simply replied, “I don’t know, ... I did it.”

Hearing Committee Recommendation

The hearing committee noted respondent’s admission that his conduct violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Such conduct violated duties owed by respondent to the public and under the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment. The only aggravating factor recognized by the committee is respondent’s substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1976). In mitigation, the committee found the following factors apply: absence of a prior disciplinary record, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, character or reputation, imposition of other penalties or sanctions, and remorse. Concluding that these mitigating factors are entitled to significant weight, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years.

Both respondent and the ODC objected to the manner in which the aggravating and mitigating factors were applied by the hearing committee. The ODC also objected to the leniency of the sanction recommended by the committee.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

| fiAfter reviewing the record, the disciplinary board accepted the hearing committee’s factual findings and application of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The board found respondent intentionally violated duties owed to the public and to the profession, causing serious injury to the public’s perception of the legal profession and those who practice it. The board concluded that disbarment is the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct.

In aggravation, the board recognized respondent’s dishonest or selfish motive, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct. The mitigating factors found by the board include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of the misconduct, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, character or reputation, imposition of other penalties or sanctions, and remorse.

The board then turned to an examination of recent disciplinary cases involving attorneys who have been convicted of federal felonies. In In re: Palmer, 02-1780 (La.12/4/02), 835 So.2d 410; In re: Nevitte, 02-1962 (La.9/30/02), 827 So.2d 1135; and In re: Adams, 00-1326 (La.6/16/00), 762 So.2d 617, the respondents were charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and of Rule 8.4(b) and/or Rule 8.4(c). All were convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, offenses of which fraud is a necessary element, and all were disbarred. Likewise, the board concluded that disbarment is appropriate in this case, given the self-serving nature of respondent’s actions and the adverse reflection those actions have upon his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

^Accordingly, the board recommended that respondent be disbarred. The board also recommended that respondent be assessed with all costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Respondent filed an objection in this court to the sanction recommended by the disciplinary board. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G)(1)(b), a timely filed objection to the board’s findings and recommendations ordinarily results in the assignment of the matter for oral argument. However, in this case, both parties agreed to waive oral argument and consented to the court’s consideration of the matter on the record presented.

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters come within the original jurisdiction of this court. La. Const. art. V, § 5(B). When the disciplinary proceedings involve an attorney who has been convicted of a crime, the conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt and the sole issue presented is whether respondent’s crimes warrant discipline, and if so, the extent thereof. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19(E); In re: Boudreau, 02-0007 (La.4/12/02), 815 So.2d 76; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Wilkinson, 562 So.2d 902 (La.1990). The discipline to be imposed depends on the seriousness of the offense and the extent of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Perez, 550 So.2d 188 (La.1989).

In the instant case, respondent stands convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. This crime is a felony under federal law and clearly warrants serious discipline. Indeed, respondent acknowledges that the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment. The only issue for us to resolve is whether a downward 1 ^departure to a three-year suspension is warranted, based on the mitigating factors present.

We recognize that several mitigating factors are supported by the record, including the absence of a prior disciplinary record, character or reputation, imposition of other penalties or sanctions, and remorse. Respondent has also demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings. Nevertheless, these mitigating factors do not diminish either the egregious nature of the conduct at issue or the substantial actual harm that results to the integrity of the profession whenever a lawyer is convicted of a serious crime.

Respondent is guilty of trading on inside information obtained on two separate occasions from an executive of USA Waste Services, Inc. The tips concerned USA Waste’s acquisition of one company and its subsequent merger with a second company. Respondent made a total of $230,475 in profits on these tips. He also passed the tips on to several friends, who then traded on the inside information and made a profit. Respondent knew this conduct was wrong, but when questioned under oath about his activities in November 1998 by the Securities and Exchange Commission, he denied any wrongdoing. Respondent did not ultimately admit his illegal conduct until 2001, some three years later, when he was presented with the evidence disproving his earlier testimony.

The cases cited by the disciplinary board clearly reflect that in disciplinary proceedings involving an attorney’s conviction of a crime involving elements of fraud and misrepresentation, this court has not hesitated to impose disbarment. As in those cases, disbarment is the only appropriate sanction under these facts.

Considering all the circumstances, we find no basis upon which to deviate downward from the baseline in this case. Accordingly, we will accept the ^disciplinary board’s recommendation and impose disbarment, retroactive to April 16, 2003, the date of respondent’s interim suspension.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Logan Lee Nichols, Louisiana Bar Roll number 9993, be and he hereby is disbarred. His name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys and his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked, retroactive to his April 16, 2003 interim suspension. 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 re: Nichols, 03-0918 (La.4/16/03), 845 So.2d 1044.

      . The following are the elements of the offense of securities fraud:
      1. That respondent knowingly engaged in acts, practices, or courses of dealing which operated as fraud and deceit on any person;
      2. That respondent did so in connection with the purchase or sale of the securities described in Count one of the Bill of Information, namely, the common stock of American Waste;
      3. In connection with this purchase or sale, respondent made use of or caused the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange; and
      4. Respondent acted with the intent to defraud.

      .After receiving both the February and March tips from Mr. Rothrock, respondent in turn tipped several of his friends, each of whom profited by trading on the inside information.

      . In October 2003, respondent was sentenced by the district court to a period of probation and community service; however, on July 2, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for re-sentencing. United States v. Nichols, 376 F.3d 440 (5th Cir.2004).


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Dana LEWIS, et al. v. Edwin P. COMPASS, III, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1666.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   PER CURIAM.

Writ Granted. As Judge Murray notes in her dissent in the court of appeal, because the determinative facts on the prescription issue are not disputed and because the prescription issue is a legal one, the trial court abused its discretion in referring the exception of prescription to the merits. Accordingly, the trial court order referring the exception of prescription to the merits is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for trial of the peremptory exception of prescription.

KIMBALL and JOHNSON, JJ., would deny the writ.


author: |!WEIMER, Justice. h KNOLL, J.,

text:
    Lester SMITH v. QUARLES DRILLING COMPANY.
    No. 2004-C-0179.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.

      Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Sidney W. Degan, III, Foster P. Nash, III, Travis L. Bourgeois, New Orleans, for Applicant.
    Miller & Miller, Michael B. Miller, Crowley, for Respondent.
   |!WEIMER, Justice.

This matter is before us for consideration of whether judicial interest automatically attaches to attorney fees awarded in a workers’ compensation judgment. For reasons that follow, we reverse the court of appeal opinion, reinstate the judgment rendered by the workers’ compensation judge, and hold judicial interest does not accrue on an attorney fee award because interest was not “prayed for” or “allowed by law.” LSA-C.C.P. art. 1921.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lester Smith was injured on the job on November 4, 1994. He filed a disputed claim seeking compensation benefits, penalties, and attorney fees. Following extensive litigation, Smith obtained an award for compensation benefits. In addition, the employer was ordered to pay $2,000 in penalties for failure to pay benefits promptly, 12$2,000 in penalties for failure to provide medical treatment promptly, and $6,000 in attorney fees. The judgment was silent with regard to interest. Smith appealed, contesting only the amount awarded for attorney fees. The court of appeal increased the award of attorney fees from $6,000 to $29,000. Smith v. Quarles Drilling Company, 01-251 (La.App. 3 Cir 10/3/01), 801 So.2d 1128. That judgment was also silent as to interest. Both parties filed for a writ of certiorari to this court; both applications were denied. Smith v. Quarles Drilling Company, 02-0080, 02-0123 (La.3/28/02), 811 So.2d 943, 945.

The employer paid the additional award of attorney fees on May 7, 2002. On May 9, 2002, Smith filed a motion seeking additional penalties and attorney fees alleging the amount paid did not include judicial interest accrued on the previously paid attorney fees. Without payment of the judicial interest accrued on the attorney fee award, Smith alleged the judgment was not fully paid within thirty days of becoming final. Smith argued judicial interest automatically attaches to an award for attorney fees whether stated in the judgment or not. He further argued the “award payable” under the terms of the final judgment was not paid within thirty days as provided by LSA-R.S. 23:1201(G), thus entitling him to additional penalties and attorney fees.

Quarles Drilling Company (Quarles) opposed the motion, arguing that neither the Office of Workers’ Compensation judgment nor the court of appeal judgment provided for interest. Quarles filed a motion for sanctions. Following a hearing, the workers’ compensation judge denied Smith’s motion for additional penalties and 13attorney fees and denied Quarles’ motion for sanctions. Both parties appealed; however, Quarles dismissed its appeal.

The court of appeal reversed the workers’ compensation judgment, determined Smith was owed interest on the attorney fee award, and pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1201(G) awarded Smith an additional $3,000 in penalties and $2,500 in attorney fees. Smith v. Quarles Drilling Company, 03-795 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/17/03), 865 So.2d 123. Quarles applied for a writ of certiorari to this court which was granted. Smith v. Quarles Drilling Company, 04-0179 (La.4/2/04), 869 So.2d 864.

DISCUSSION

Quarles advances three arguments before this court — the court of appeal lacked jurisdiction to amend a final judgment to add an award for interest; the court of appeal erred in holding interest automatically attaches to an award for penalties and attorney fees as a matter of law; and the court of appeal erred in failing to apply Fallen v. New Orleans Police Department, 01-0544 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02) 812 So.2d 692, writ denied, 02-0702 (La.5/3/02), 815 So.2d 823, to the facts of this case.

We begin by examining the holding of the court of appeal. The single issue on appeal was whether the workers’ compensation judge erred in failing to award penalties and attorney fees pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1201(G) for the failure of |4Quarles to pay the “award payable,” including interest on attorney fees, within thirty days after it became due. Smith, relying on George v. Guillory, 2000-00591(La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 776 So.2d 1200, argued that interest was due on the increase in the attorney fees awarded by the court of appeal in the October 2001 judgment from the date of the judgment until paid. His contention was that interest automatically attached to an award for penalties and attorney fees whether prayed for in the petition or provided by judgment. Smith further argued the payment made by Quarles on May 7, 2002, did not include interest on the attorney fee award; therefore, the payment did not satisfy the entirety of the award payable and he was entitled to an additional penalty and attorney fee.

Quarles argued the George case was wrongly decided, citing Sharbono v. Steve Lang & Son Loggers, 97-0110 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 1382. In Sharbono, this court was called upon to determine at which point an award for interest on attorney fees begins to accrue — from the date of judicial demand or from the date of the judgment. The Sharbono court concluded interest was due from the date of the judgment awarding interest.

The court of appeal agreed with Smith. Relying on its opinion in George wherein the court cited Kortz v. Colt Energy Services, Inc., 97-159 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/29/97), 698 So.2d 460, the court of appeal found that legal interest is mandatory under the workers’ compensation statute. The George case also cited Crooks v. Town of Ball, 94-466 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/94), 649 So.2d 597, for the proposition 1 ¡¡that interest automatically attaches whether prayed for in the petition or mentioned in the judgment. The court acknowledged that judicial interest on attorney fees is due from the date of the judgment in workers’ compensation cases. Sharbono, 97-0110 at 10, 696 So.2d at 1388-89.

Following the reasoning of George, Kortz, and Crooks, the court of appeal found that interest on the award for attorney fees in this case was mandatory and automatic although not prayed for and that Quarles failed to pay that interest. The court further reasoned the tender of $23,000 on May 7, 2002, did not satisfy the judgment because the payment did not include interest on that amount from the date of the judgment. The court of appeal held plaintiff was not only entitled to interest on the award for the additional attorney fees, but also an award for penalties and attorney fees provided under the mandatory provision of LSA-R.S. 23:1201(G).

We disagree with the reasoning of the court of appeal. In order to obtain interest on an award, a litigant must pray for interest unless interest is allowed by law. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1921 provides: “Interest in the judgment shall be awarded as prayed for or as allowed by law.” The “as allowed by law” language has been frequently interpreted to refer to judicial interest in tort cases. See LSA-R.S. 13:4203.

| fiSimilarly, the workers’ compensation law provides that an award for compensation carries with it an award for interest due from the date of each installment payment. LSA-R.S. 28:1201.3(A). Thus, under the statute, compensation awarded shall bear judicial interest.

Review of the record in this matter indicates Smith filed a disputed claim for compensation in which he sought recovery of compensation benefits, penalties, and attorney fees. Smith did not request interest on the award for attorney fees. The judgment rendered in the workers’ compensation court did not provide for interest on the attorney fee award. On appeal, Smith contested the amount of attorney fees awarded, but did not assign as error the omission of interest on the attorney fees.

The court of appeal amended the judgment increasing the amount of the award for attorney fees, but did not provide for interest on that award. Smith v. Quarles Drilling Company, 01-251 at 4, 801 So.2d at 1130. Thus, pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 1921, because interest was not “prayed for,” Smith may only recover interest on the award for attorney fees if interest is “allowed by law.”

Awards of attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature, and are intended to deter indifference and undesirable conduct by employers and insurers toward injured employees. Langley v. Petro Star Corp. of La., 01-0198, p. 3 (La.6/29/01), 792 So.2d 721, 723; J.E. Merit Constructors, Inc. v. Hickman, 00-0943, p. 5 (La.1/17/01), 776 So.2d 435, 438; Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, pp. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), 737 So.2d 41, 46; Sharbono v. Steve Lang & Son Loggers, 97-0110 at 7, 696 So.2d at 1386. Although the benefits in the Workers’ Compensation Act are to be liberally construed, penal statutes are to be strictly construed. Langley v. Petro Star Corp. of La., 01-0198 at 4, 792 So.2d at 723; Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 at 9, 737 So.2d at 46. We note LSA-R.S. 23:1201(G) is a penal statute which must be strictly construed.

The judgments rendered by the workers’ compensation judge and the court of appeal in this matter are devoid of an award of interest accruing on the attorney fee award. It has long been the rule that interest cannot be recovered on a judgment which is silent as to interest. Factors’ & Traders’ Ins. Co. v. New Harbor Prot. Co., 39 La.Ann. 583, 2 So. 407 (La.1887); Succession of Anderson, 33 La. Ann. 581 (La.1881). An exception exists when interest is provided by statute. We agree that “legal [or judicial] interest is statutory and should be strictly construed.” Cole v. Celotex Corporation, 599 So.2d 1058, 1081 (La.1992), quoting Cole v. Celotex Corporation, 588 So.2d 376, 389 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1991), which in turn cites Merchant v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 83 So.2d 920, 926 (La.App. 1st Cir.1955), a case in which then Judge Tate writing for the court states, “[Judicial] interest is somewhat in the nature of a penalty, and as applied to the present facts the statute should be strictly construed.”

This court has previously addressed the difference between “compensation” and other awards recoverable pursuant to the workers’ compensation statutes. In a thorough discussion of LSA-R.S. 23:1201.3, the court determined the term “compensation” within the meaning of the statute does not include attorney fees and | ¡.penalties. Sharbono, 97-0110 at 5, 696 So.2d at 1385-86. The court specifically held that LSA-R.S. 23:1201.3 does not govern the calculation of interest on penalties and attorney fees in a workers’ compensation judgment. Sharbono, 97-0110 at 6, 696 So.2d at 1386. Therefore, interest on attorney fees is not “allowed by law” pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1201.3.

The court of appeal erred in relying on its prior decision in George, a case in which the workers’ compensation judge awarded penalties and attorney fees, but failed to award interest thereon. The third circuit found no error in the ruling, finding that judicial interest attaches automatically by operation of law. Relying on Kortz, the court reasoned that silence as to judicial interest in the judgment does not constitute denial because interest is mandatory under the workers’ compensation statute. George was decided after this court decided Sharbono and is in direct conflict with its holding that LSA-R.S. 23:1201.3 “does not govern the evaluation of interest on a hearing officer’s award of penalties and attorney fees.” Sharbono, 97-0110 at 6, 696 So.2d at 1386. As stated in Sharbono, attorney fees awarded are not “compensation.” Rather, attorney fees are in the nature of a penalty as opposed to compensation. Insofar as they conflict with this decision George v. Guillory, 2000-00591 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 776 So.2d 1200, and Kortz v. Colt Energy Services, Inc., 97-159 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/29/97), 698 So.2d 460, are overruled.

In accordance with the holding of this court in Sharbono, Smith was not automatically entitled to interest on the award of attorney fees. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and the judgment of the workers’ compensation judge is reinstated.

1 ciOther arguments advanced by Quarles are pretermitted in light of our ruling in this matter.

CONCLUSION

In this case, Smith did not pray for interest on attorney fees in the petition nor did he appeal the absence of an award for interest in the judgment. Neither the workers’ compensation judgment nor the court of appeal judgment provided for interest on the attorney fees. Those judgments became final with no mention of interest accruing on the attorney fee award. The “award payable” reflected on the face of the judgment was paid in full. Judicial interest did not accrue on the attorney fee award because interest was not “prayed for.” Interest on an attorney fee award is not “allowed by law” pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1201.3. See LSA-C.C.P. art. 1921.

For reasons previously assigned, the decision of the court of appeal is reversed. The judgment of the workers’ compensation judge is reinstated.

REVERSED.

KNOLL, J., additionally concurs with reasons.

h KNOLL, J.,

additionally concurring.

Presently there is no statutory authority in the law to automatically allow legal interest on attorney’s fees and penalties owed in workers’ compensation cases. The Louisiana Legislature should address this oversight to encourage those who owe a ■ debt to timely pay their obligation to attorneys who successfully pursue compensation benefits for the workers of this state. Legal interest should be provided automatically on the award of attorney’s fees and penalties without the superfluous necessity of having to ask that it be awarded, see e.g. La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 2000 (providing that in the absence of agreement, legal interest should be awarded as fixed by La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 2924 on sums of money due).

      . Interest is either legal or conventional. Legal interest on sums which are the object of a judicial demand, at the rate fixed in LSA-R.S. 13:4202, is called "judicial interest.” LSA-C.C. art. 2924. Codal authority and jurisprudence refer to legal interest and judicial interest interchangeably. For purposes of this opinion we use the term "judicial interest.”

      . For prior history, see also Smith v. Quarles Drilling Company, 99-171 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/2/99), 741 So.2d 829, writ denied, 99-1949 (La. 10/8/99), 751 So.2d 227; Smith v. Quarles Drilling Company, writ denied, 96-0258 (La.3/15/96), 669 So.2d 420.

      . LSA-R.S. 23:1201(G) provides:

        If any award payable under the terms of a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due, there shall be added to such award an amount equal to twenty-four percent thereof or one hundred dollars per day together with reasonable attorney fees, for each calendar day after thirty days it remains unpaid, whichever is greater, which shall be paid at the same time as, and in addition to, such award, unless such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. No amount paid as a penalty under this Subsection shall be included in any formula utilized to establish premium rates for workers' compensation insurance. The total one hundred dollar per calendar day penalty provided for in this Subsection shall not exceed three thousand dollars in the aggregate.

      . Kortz was decided by the fifth circuit on July 29, 1997, shortly after this court decided Sharbono and did not cite the Sharbono case. Instead, Kortz relied on language in the statute and Crooks v. Town of Ball, 94-466 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/94), 649 So.2d 597, a case that interpreted the language of the statute to be mandatory and comparable to LSA-R.S. 13:4203 which provides for legal interest in tort cases from date of judicial demand.

      . "Official Revision Comments — 1960" following Article 1921 provides, in part:
      The phrase "as provided by law” will cover the exception in the case of tort claims, since in these cases interest attaches automatically, without being prayed for.

      . LSA-R.S. 13:4203 provides as follows:
      Legal interest shall attach from date of judicial demand, on all judgments, sounding in damages, "ex delicto”, which may be rendered by any of the courts.
      It is well settled that interest provided by LSA-R.S. 13:4203 is due whether prayed for or provided in the judgment. Caldwell v. City of Shreveport, 150 La. 465, 90 So. 763 (1922); see also LeBlanc v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, 202 La. 857, 13 So.2d 245 (1943), citing Layne v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 164 So. 672 (La.App. 2 Cir.1935).

      .LSA-R.S. 23:1201.3(A) provides, in part:
      Any compensation awarded and all payments thereof directed to be made by order of the workers' compensation judge shall bear judicial interest from the date compensation was due until the date of satisfaction. The interest rate shall be fixed at the rate in effect on the date the claim for benefits was filed with the office of workers’ compensation administration.

      . See footnote 1.


text:
    Huey P. DEAN v. Lurry D. CREW, et al.
    No. 2004-OC-2311.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 27, 2004.
   In re Lurry D. Crew, applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated September 22, 2004, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court, Division A, No. 36397; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39,408-CA.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    In re: Y.G.B. Applying for Intrafamily Adoption of L.J.B.
    No. 2004-CC-2449.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 27, 2004.
   In re Y.G.B. In re et al.; C.B.; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. A-772; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-C-652.

Motion to dismiss denied. Writ denied.


text:
    Misty K. GREEN v. Felicia MOREHEAD, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2525.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 27, 2004.
   In re Moorehead, Felicia R. et al.; Government Employees Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, Pineville City Court, No. 4-0098; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 04-01171.

Denied. May reurge on appeal.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James WEEKS aka Jimmy Weeks.
    No. 2004-KK-2541.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 27, 2004.
   In re Weeks, James a/k/a; Weeks, Jimmy; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. E, Nos. 04 — F-000786, 04-F0361; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39504-KW.

Denied.


text:
    Ken SMITH d/b/a B & K Music v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOPMENT.
    No. 2004-C-1317.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re State of Louisiana et al.; Department of Transportation & Development;— Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Allen, 33th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C-99-671; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1450.

Granted. Consolidated with 2004-C-1594.


text:
    Ken SMITH d/b/a B & K Music v. Mike UNKEL.
    No. 2004-C-1594.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Unkel, Mike; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Allen, 33th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. C-2000-237; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1362.

Granted. Consolidated with 2004-C-1317.


text:
    In re TRANSIT MANAGEMENT OF SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, INC.
    No. 2004-OC-1193.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Lexington Insurance Co.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 98^4827; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2004-CM-0573, 2004-CA-0632, 2004-CA-0633.

Writ granted; appeal reinstated; remanded. Because appeals are favored in law, and especially given the unique procedural facts of this case, we reverse the court of appeal’s ruling dismissing relator’s appeal and remand for further proceedings.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.

KIMBALL, J., would deny the writ.


text:
    Walter EBEL and Anna Ingrassia v. STATE of Louisiana through the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1764.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Ebel, Walter; Ingrassia, Anna;— Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 98-3395; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-0207.

Granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss on grounds of abandonment is reinstated for the reasons assigned by the dissenting judge in the court of appeal. Case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

VICTORY, J., would deny the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would deny the writ.


text:
    Dr. Donald FALGOUST v. HART EYE CENTER, LLC, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1881.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Hart Eye Center LLC et al.;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2002-3523; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 04-0040.

Writ not considered. Not timely filed.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Paul MARTINEZ v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2646.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Martinez, Paul; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 01-KA-2241, 2001-KO-2588; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-986.

Denied. Not -cognizable and repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Henry JAMES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2651.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re James, Henry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 431-710; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1253.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert MUNCH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2665.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Munch, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 01-1812; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. OS-KH-932.

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. Dexter O’Neal ARVIE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2706.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Arvie, Dexter O’Neal; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 52616; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00811.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lonnie BILBO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2711.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Bilbo, Lonnie; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 6483-95;

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Thea Marie JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2723.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Johnson, Thea Marie; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 255,185; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00215.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Diamond DO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2728.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Do, Diamond; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 99-1091; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-286.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Hasan HENDERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2731.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Henderson, Hasan; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 10,807; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 0753.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Alan L. DAWES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2735.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Dawes, Alan L.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 265277; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00339.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kevin Lynn CAIN (aka Kevin Lynn Ross) v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2751.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Cain, Kevin Lynn; Ross, Kevin Lynn a/k/a; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caldwell, 37th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 60,498; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37983-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana Kenneth HARRIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2763.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Harris, Kenneth; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 419-556; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1069.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Troy JOURNET v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2766.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Journet, Troy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 97-117549; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH03-01051.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ricky KRUMMEL, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2805.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Krummel, Ricky Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 813,606; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0880.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Johnny FOLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2806.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Foley, Johnny; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 82-3368; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-1032.

Denied. Untimely, repetitive, and not cognizable. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D); 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. Herbert BUTLER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2807.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Butler, Herbert; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 5-88-1284; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1124.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jimmy BRADY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2808.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Brady, Jimmy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 376-282; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1303.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Frederick KNIGHT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2833.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Knight, Frederick; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 99-5559; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-1100.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jamal B. FORD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2836.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Ford, Jamal B.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 411-677; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1604.

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. Floyd TEZENO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2839.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Tezeno, Floyd; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 36,530; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH-03-01111.

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 v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Melvin DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2840.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Davis, Melvin; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 95-2188; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-1040.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Samuel BANKS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2843.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Banks, Samuel; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 371-325; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-0950.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronnie FELDERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2844.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Felders, Ronnie;- — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 412-199; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1363.

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. Arthur R. MILEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2845.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Miley, Arthur R.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 97-F1668; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37838-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Allen Dwayne BURMASTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2846.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Burmaster, Allen Dwayne; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 43,909; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 02-00837.

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. Chris J. LEBLANC v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2857.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re LeBlane, Chris J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 97953; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00490.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Spencer ELZIE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2858.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Elzie, Spencer; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 77846; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0949.

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

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gregory DAMM v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2860.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Damm, Gregory; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 93459; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-01109.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ricky Joseph ALEX v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2863.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Alex, Ricky Joseph; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 4493-90, 10108-92; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1377.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Paul BILLIOT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2940.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Billiot, Paul; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 11-3816.

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 v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Mandrell TONEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2988.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Toney, Mandrell; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 393-595; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-2525.

Denied. State ex rel. Bernard, v. Cr.D.C., 94-2247, p. 1 (La.4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174, 1175.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Johnny FOLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-3082.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Foley, Johnny; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 82-3368; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-1032.

Denied. Untimely, repetitive, and not cognizable. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 980.4(D); La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    Kevan BRUMFIELD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KP-0081.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Brumfield, Kevan; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 1-93-865.

Denied.


author: CALOGERO, C.J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John IVORY.
    No. 2004-KK-0653.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Ivory, John; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 03-5109; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-K-37.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J.,

concurs. Because the motion to suppress was submitted solely on the police report, the defendant, should he be convicted, may re-raise the issue on appeal where it can be considered with the benefit of a complete trial record. See State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), 655 So.2d 272.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Carrol J. VINCENT.
    No. 2004-KP-0790.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Vincent, Carrol J.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 01-CR-001848; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-01735.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gregory DAMM v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KH-0898.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Damm, Gregory; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 93459; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-1330.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Chuck JARRELL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KK-1846.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Jarrell, Chuck; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 02-CR2-83980; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KW 1087.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Harold Bart OLIPHANT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KP-1319.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Oliphant, Harold Bart; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 13509; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KW 0028.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael WILLIAMS, aka Paul Williams and Michael Wilson v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2841.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Williams, Michael a/k/a; Williams, Paul; Wilson, Michael; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 7-98-983; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1396.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kennan TEMPLE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2842.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Temple, Kennan; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 99-7526; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-1091.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gross WILLIAMS.
    No. 2004-KK-2498.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Williams, Gross; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 442-454(L); to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-K-1557.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Harold Dennis HANSBRO.
    No. 2004-KP-1118.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Hansbro, Harold D.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 199,070; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38855-KW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Eric MATTHEWS.
    No. 2004-KK-1762.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Matthews, Eric; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 98,084; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KW 0316.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jeffrey CRAWFORD.
    No. 2004-KK-1800.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. A Nos. 115,724, 115,725, 115,726; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 39,140-KW, 39,141-KW, 39,142-KW.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gary HARRALL.
    No. 2004-KP-1198.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Harrall, Gary; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 402-510; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-K-0558.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry HARRIS.
    No. 2004-KO-1287.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Harris, Larry; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 00-2434; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-1297.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Donald Ray LEMONS.
    No. 2004-KO-1288.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Lemons, Donald Ray; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 00F1850; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,-269-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry HARRIS and Leon Williams, Jr.
    No. 2004-KO-1289.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Williams, Leon Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 00-2434; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-1297.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Johnny L. FRAZIER.
    No. 2004-KO-1290.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Frazier, Johnny; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 99-128; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-1219.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Quindale ADDISON.
    No. 2004-KO-1291.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Addison, Quindale; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 02-6646; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-1421.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth SINGLETON
    No. 2004-KP-1293.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Singleton, Kenneth; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 396-042; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-K-0604.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Quentin WILEY.
    No. 2004-K-1298.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Wiley, Quentin; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 01-1288; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-884.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Theodore GENTER.
    No. 2004-KO-1302.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Genter, Theodore; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 428-226; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-KA-1987.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gregory WILLIAMS.
    No. 2004-KO-1309.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Williams, Gregory; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 7-00-284; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KA 1531.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Evelyn F. TADEMY.
    No. 2004-KO-1343.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Tademy, Evelyn Fay; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 267,305; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1472.

Denied.


text:
    Rodney J. POCHE and Dixie Ann Poche v. Randall J. FACCA and Westport Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1448.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Poche, Rodney J. et al.; Poche, Dixie Ann; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 63,485-A, 62461-A, 63704-C; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 03-1361.

Denied.


text:
    Darryl M. RICHARD, Alvin Richard, Jr., Dwight Richard, Norwood M. Richard, Cathy Jean Richard Brice, Carol Ann West and Rosalind Theresa Richard on Behalf of Bernice Richard v. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a Memorial Medical Center and/or Mercy Hospital of New Orleans, Inc., Dr. Russell Albright, Dr. Paul Ovide Villien, Jr., Dr. Leonard Glade and Dr. William Smith.
    No. 2004-C-1521.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Richard, Darryl M. et al.; Richard, Alvin Jr.; Richard, Dwight; Richard, Nor-wood M.; Brice, Cathy Jean Richard; West, Carol Ann; Richard, Rosalind Theresa; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 03-9352; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1933.

Denied.

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

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Stanley J. EARTHLY v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INS. CO.
    No. 2004-C-1656.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re United of Omaha Life Insurance Company; — Defendant, Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 201,629; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 04-104.

Denied.


text:
    Billy J. COKER and Marcia Coker v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY.
    No. 2004-CC-1694.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Geico Indemnity Company; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 477,381; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39042-CW.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    John FOX v. Frederick HEISLER.
    No. 2004-C-1748.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Fox, John; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2003-9267; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1964.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Valerie Duhon DOMINGUE, et al. v. LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 2004-C-1803.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Domingue, Valerie Duhon et al.;— Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2001-5116-E; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-895.

Denied.


text:
    Virgil Arthur PANKEY v. Bobby Ray PILKINGTON, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1804.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Lewis, John; Speer Trucking, Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 61,729; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39084-CW.

Denied.


text:
    Gracie Gail DURMON and James Wesley Durmon v. Michael BILLINGS, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1805.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Durmon, Gracie Gail et al.; Durmon, James Wesley; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 472,941; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,514-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Roy Hugh JONES, et al. v. TOWN OF VIVIAN, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1806.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Louisiana, State of; Transportation and Development, Dept, of; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 452,186; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39046-CW.

Denied.


text:
    Cathy FOREST v. Jean HILLER, North American Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Stephen Moore, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Garry Moore and Shelter Mutual Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1810.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re USAA Casualty Insurance Co.; Moore, Stephen; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 01-7810; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1999.

Denied.


text:
    Bradley COLE, Individually and on Behalf of His Minor Child, Leah Ashton Cole and Denise Cole v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS.
    No. 2004-C-1836.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Louisiana State of, et al.; Public Safety and Corrections Dept, of; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 431,432; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 2269.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Cong DUONG and Yen Nguyen v. Carolina SALAS, Allstate Insurance Company and U.S. Agencies Casualty Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1840.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re U.S. Agencies Casualty Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 453,172; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,613-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Joseph K. WEST, et al. v. Wendell Gerard ARMANT, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1842.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Armant, Wendell Gerard; Wendell Gerard Armant, A.P.L.C.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 97-1557; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-0909.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., recused.


text:
    In re CHEMICAL RELEASE AT BOGALUSA.
    No. 2004-CC-1843.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re RLI Insurance Company; Federal Insurance Company; American National Fire Insurance Company; United National Insurance Company; Great American Insurance Company of New York ¶k/a;— Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 73,341; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 1298.

Denied.


text:
    Ernestine SPURLOCK v. EAST FELICIANA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 2004-C-1844.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Spurlock, Ernestine; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 34,485; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1879.

Denied.


text:
    Thomas VINCENT v. NAPA AUTO PARTS AND SUPPLY.
    No. 2004-C-1845.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re NAPA Auto Parts and Supply;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation — #2, No. 01-08441; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. OS-295.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Angela LONERGAN, Through Her Personal Representative, Merele Dejean SAVOIE v. Dr. Ralph GESSNER.
    No. 2004-CC-1852.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 51,475; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-C-661.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Rhonda Dyess, Wife of/and Cecil D. DYESS v. AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY.
    No. 2004-C-1858.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re American National Property and Casualty Company; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 93400 C; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1971.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Kelli I. JONES, et al. v. Dr. Allen PARR, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1859.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Logan, John Dr.; Lakeview Regional Medical Center; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2000-14201; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 0529.

Denied.


text:
    Gerald Garrett SMITH, et al. v. John B. SLATTERY, Jr., et al.
    No. 2004-C-1860.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Smith Gerald Garrett et al.;— Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 458,888; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,693-CA.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Lashonda VAUGHN and Danny Vaughn v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1862.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Grant Properties L.L.C.; Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natch-itoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 72,000; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1627.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Barbara WEST v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, d/b/a Amtrak.
    No. 2004-C-1867.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re West, Barbara; — Plaintiff, Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 99-14106; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1707.

Denied.


text:
    William CONRAD v. Frances EPPS and Farm Bureau Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1877.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Conrad, William; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 70,368; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1770.

Denied.


text:
    Thomas KATES, Paul Kates, Dennis Kates v. CITIZEN’S SAVING BANK f/k/a Citizen’s Savings & Loan Association.
    No. 2004-C-1879.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Kates, Thomas et al.; Kates, Paul; Kates, Dennis;- — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 83,621; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1719.

Denied.


text:
    Shelby SMITH v. MORRIS & DICKSON.
    No. 2004-CC-1880.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Morris & Dickson; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Office of Worker’s Compensation District 02, No. 03-07255; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCW 04-00381.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Calithia S. THOMAS v. WESTAFF, INC.
    No. 2004-C-1882.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Westaff, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. # 2, No. 02-02474; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1663.

Denied.


text:
    James Thomas MILLAGE v. BUILDER’S LUMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY.
    No. 2004-C-1885.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Millage, James Thomas; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation District 1-W, No. 02-02906; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,635-WCA.

Denied.

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

KIMBALL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Susan SMITH v. LAFAYETTE PARISH SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1886.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Smith, Susan; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 99-1313 L; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-517.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Mark TAYLOR, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, DOTD.
    No. 2004-C-1887.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Louisiana State of; Transportation and Development Dept, of; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Catahoula, 7th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 19,098; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-0219.

Denied.


text:
    John Gregory BASS and Rachel Lynn Bass v. Derrell A. MEYERS, Jr. d/b/a Meyers Construction, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1888.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.; — Defendant, Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 53,809; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 04-0013.

Denied.


text:
    LOUISIANA CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., et al. v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2004-C-1890.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Louisiana Claims Adjustment Bureau, Inc., et al.; — Plaintiff, Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 461,710-C; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,709-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Agnes WILLIAMS v. Michael L. WILLIAMS.
    No. 2004-C-1891.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Williams, Agnes; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 47,640; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 2089.

Denied.


text:
    Crythis K. Bristow COUVILLION v. William Anthony COUVILLION.
    No. 2004-C-1892.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Couvillion, Crythis K. Bristow;— Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Family Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 138,002; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 2006.

Denied.


text:
    Rhonda M. MAYLEY v. LEE’S HAMBURGER ENTERPRISES, INC.
    No. 2004-CC-1895.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Essex Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 527-477; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-C-582.

Denied.


text:
    Stella WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf of Lakita Williams, Justin Williams, Danuilla Williams, Preston Williams and Jorita Williams (Children of the Deceased Sarita Williams) v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF the LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and Agricultural and Mechanical College (LSU Medical Center Health Care Services Division).
    No. 2004-CC-1897.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Jing, Xin Dr.; Laboy, Miguel Dr.; Tulane Educational Fund Admin, of d/b/a; Tulane University Sch. of Medicine; — Defendant/s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 2003-11417; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-1011.

Denied.


text:
    GIBSON, Malcolm and Nicole Gibson, et al. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF the LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and Agricultural and Mechanical College, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1898.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Jing, Xan Dr.; Laboy, Miguel Dr.; Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund d/b/a; Tulane University School of Medicine; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 2003-11504; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-0966.

Denied.


text:
    Brandi M. TORRES v. Deborah Kay RUTLEDGE and Michael Rutledge, as Administrator of the Estate of his Minor Child, Virginia Lynn Rutledge.
    No. 2004-C-1899.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Torres, Brandi M.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judi-dal District Court Div. A, No. 36,239; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1967.

Denied.


text:
    Vanessa WHITE, et al. v. AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY.
    No. 2004-CC-1902.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re American Cyanamid Company; — • Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, First Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson, No. 126001; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-C-641.

Denied.


text:
    Lowery M. THOMAS v. LOUISIANA CASINO CRUISES, INC.
    No. 2004-C-1904.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Thomas, Lowery; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 447,555; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1937.

Denied.


text:
    Richelle A. SIMS v. Bobby SIMPSON, Michael Ponder, David Medlin and Bryan Mayers.
    No. 2004-C-1905.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Sims, Richelle A.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 514,909; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 0542.

Denied.


text:
    Cheryl SCOTT v. Charles E. COOK and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1907.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Scott, Cheryl; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2000-14855; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1754.

Denied.


text:
    Roy J. BELLANGER v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Eugene Plaisance, Jr. and Lowes Home Center, Inc.
    No. 2004-C-1909.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Bellanger, Roy J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 89802; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 2124.

Denied.


text:
    WORLD TRADE CENTER TAXING DISTRICT v. ALL TAXPAYERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, AND CITIZENS OF WORLD TRADE CENTER TAXING DISTRICT and Nonresidents Owning Property or Subject to Taxation Therein, et al.
    No. 2004-C-2282.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re World Trade Center Taxing District; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2004-2404; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-1365.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.

KIMBALL, J., would hold pending resolution of the constitutional issues to be decided in no. 2004-C-1674.

KNOLL, J., would hold pending resolution of the constitutional issues to be decided in no. 2004-C-1674.


text:
    In re Robert E. PATRICK v. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL.
    No. 2004-OB-2338.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Patrick, Robert E.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Review No. 04-DB-011.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana (City of Shreveport) v. Clayton COBB.
    No. 2004-KK-2446.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Cobb, Clayton; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, Shreveport City Court, Nos. 04004233, 04004234; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 39412-KW, 39413-KW.

Denied.


text:
    Terry GIAUQUE, Melissa Bertrand and Darla R. Larson, Individually and on Behalf of the Minor Child Allie Larson v. CLEAN HARBORS PLAQUEMINE, L.L.C. and Michael A. Sullivan.
    No. 2004-CC-2474.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 29, 2004.
   In re Clean Harbors Plaquemine L.L.C. et al.; Sullivan, Michael A.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 60195; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 1813.

Denied.


author:
KIRBY, J.
      ARMSTRONG, C.J.,

text:
    Yolanda HANKTON, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1307.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    Sept. 8, 2004.
    Charles C. Foti, Jr., Attorney General, J. Elliott Baker, Special Assistant Attorney General, the Aubert Law Firm, Cov-ington, Counsel for Relator (State of Louisiana).
    Thomas B. Calvert, Metairie, Counsel for Respondents.
    Court composed of Chief Judge JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG, Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS Jr.
   KIRBY, J.

Venue in the present case must be determined by looking at La. R.S. 49:964(B). Kelty v. Brumfield, 93-1142 (La.2/25/94) 633 So.2d 1210; and In Re: Medical Review Panel of Ricard, 98-2603, 98-2604 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/9/99) 736 So.2d 1033. The statute provides that “[pjroceedings for review may be instituted by filing a petition in the district court of the parish in which the agency is located within thirty days after mailing of notice of the final decision by the agency or, if a rehearing is requested, within thirty days after the decision thereon. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record.”

The Office of Risk Management is part of the Division of Administration, which is part of the Governor’s Office. See La. R.S. 39:1528; La. R.S. 36:4(B)(l)(a). Thus, suits seeking judicial review of decisions by the Office of Risk Management must be filed in East Baton Rouge (the parish where the Governor’s Office is located). The trial court erred when it denied the State’s exception of improper venue.

Accordingly, we grant the State’s writ application as well as the exception of improper venue, and transfer the matter to East Baton Rouge Parish.

ARMSTRONG, C.J., concurs in the result.

ARMSTRONG, C.J.,

Concurring in the Result.

I respectfully concur in the result reached by the majority.