author: CASANUEVA, Judge.

text:
    William S. STEMPLER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D06-4934.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 9, 2007.
   CASANUEVA, Judge.

William S. Stempler, Jr., appeals the order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Stempler alleged the trial court’s imposition of the $201 domestic violence surcharge violated the ex post facto provision of the Constitution of the United States because although section 938.08, Florida Statutes, became effective prior to his April 28, 2003, sentencing, it did not become effective until after he committed the offenses. The postconviction court, relying on Ridgeway v. State, 892 So.2d 538, 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), found that section 938.08 did not violate the ex post facto provisions of the United States Constitution.

However, recently this court in Griffin v. State, 946 So.2d 610, 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), certified conflict with Ridgeway, finding the following:

While Ridgeway presents its position well, we are not convinced that we should treat costs contained in statutes that apply only in criminal cases to convicted criminal defendants as “civil.” This is particularly troublesome when the failure to pay those costs can lead to further incarceration, at least in the case of a sentence of probation. We cannot equate these costs with civil filing fees that are assessed against either the losing plaintiff or the losing defendant and that are enforceable only as a judgment lien.

More important, this court in Griffin relied on Cutwright v. State, 934 So.2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), finding that because “[cjosts may not be imposed where the authorizing statutes were enacted after the date of the offense,” the costs imposed in Griffin were improper. See also Navicky v. State, 949 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

The information charged Stempler with committing certain offenses between June 1, 2000, and December 31, 2000. Section 938.08 did not become effective until July 1, 2001. See ch. 2001-50, § 5, Laws of Fla. The trial court sentenced Stempler on April 28, 2003. Therefore, similarly to Griffin, the $201 domestic violence surcharge was retroactively applied at sentencing for crimes committed before the effective date of section 938.08. Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s order with instructions to strike the $201 domestic violence surcharge and amend the judgment accordingly. As we did in Griffin, we certify conflict with the First District’s opinion in Ridgeway.

Reversed and remanded; conflict certified.

STRINGER, and CANADY, JJ., Concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Alvin GIROUX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D06-2083.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 9, 2007.
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Richard B. Greene, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation of his stepdaughter by touching her vaginal area over her clothing. While he contends that the evidence was legally insufficient and required a judgment of acquittal, we disagree. Not only did the child and the mother see the appellant remove his hand from the child’s clothing, but when confronted by the mother, he essentially admitted to the conduct. The evidence met the elements of the statute. See § 800.04(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2005) (“A person who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age ... commits lewd or lascivious molestation.”). Further, the question of whether the touching was committed lewdly or lasciviously is one of fact for the jury. See Rosen v. State, 940 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Affirmed.

WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.


text:
    MIAMI JEWISH HOME AND HOSPITAL FOR the AGED, INC., Petitioner, v. Joann REDMOND, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Janel Jackson, Respondent.
    No. 3D07-397.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 9, 2007.
    Stephens, Lynn, Klein, and Cayla B. Tenenbaum and Robert M. Klein and Marlene S. Reiss, Miami, for appellant.
    Bernstein and Maryanoff, and Scott L. Poisson, Miami, for appellee.
    Before COPE, C.J., and FLETCHER and LAGOA JJ.
   ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Respondent having confessed error, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the January 18, 2007 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and Objection to Request for Production of Patient Wright’s Medical Records.

Certiorari granted; order quashed.


text:
    REO ACQUISITIONS OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. Angel L. BORGE and Marie Borge, Appellee.
    No. 3D07-579.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 9, 2007.
    Alayon & Associates, P.A., and Richard A. Alayon, Miami, for appellant.
    Abrams & Abrams, P.A., and David S. Abrams, Longwood, for appellee.
    Before COPE, C.J., and FLETCHER and LAGOA JJ.
   ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Based on appellee’s proper confession of error, we reverse the denial of appellant’s motion to vacate arbitration award, and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.


text:
    OVERNIGHT SUCCESS CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant, v. PAVARINI CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., Appellees.
    No. 3D05-2696.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 9, 2007.
    Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 9, 2007.
    Pepe & Nemire, Coral Gables, and Thomas F. Pepe, for appellant.
    Vincent F. Vaccarella, and Jordan M. Keusch, Aventura; F. Malcolm Cunningham, Jr., and Amy L. Fischer, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
    Before GERSTEN, GREEN and RAMIREZ, JJ.
   ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Overnight Success Construction, Inc.’s motion for rehearing, and Overnight’s request for clarification of this Court’s November 15, 2006 opinion to correct scrivener’s errors are granted. Accordingly, we withdraw the prior opinion issued November 15, 2006, and issue the following clarified opinion in its place.

Overnight appeals the entry of an adverse summary judgment and the denial of its motion for rehearing. We affirm, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s granting of appellee Pavarini Construction Co., Inc.’s motion to amend affirmative defenses, and no support for the award of attorney’s fees and costs in favor of Overnight as the non-prevailing party below.

The underlying suit began in June of 2001 when Overnight sued Pavarini, its contractor. BAC Funding Corporation was Overnight’s lender and the holder of an assignment of Overnight’s account receivables. In January of 2002, Pavarini made a settlement offer to BAC which Overnight subsequently rejected. BAC intervened in the Overnight and Pavarini lawsuit over one year later. On December 24, 2003, almost two years after Overnight filed suit and shortly before the re-scheduled trial date of March 15, 2004, Pavarini moved to amend its affirmative defenses. The trial court granted the motion to amend. During the subsequent nineteen months, the court continued trial several times during which the parties also conducted discovery of the underlying contract claims. The court ultimately entered judgment in Pavarini’s favor, and denied Overnight’s request for attorney’s fees and costs incurred before the amendment.

Overnight argues that the amendment caused it undue prejudice and that it was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs incurred prior to the amendment. We cannot agree that the amendment caused Overnight any prejudice on the record before us, and there is no support in Florida law for the payment of attorney’s fees and costs in Overnight’s favor under these circumstances.

The standard of review of an order granting a motion to amend is abuse of discretion. See Yun Enters., Ltd. v. Graziani, 840 So.2d 420, 422-23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Rule 1.190(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for leave to amend pleadings when justice so requires. The decision to grant leave to amend rests upon the trial court’s discretion, and any doubts should be resolved in favor of the amendment. See Thompson v. Jared Kane Co., 872 So.2d 356, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Here, there is no reversible abuse of discretion in light of the amount of time that elapsed between the day on which Pavarini made its settlement offer to BAC and the filing of Pavarini’s motion to amend, during which no substantial litigation transpired between Overnight and Pa-varini. Furthermore, there is no justification for the award of attorney’s fees and costs in Overnight’s favor. Florida law does not support Overnight’s contention that the trial court should have pre-condi-tioned the amendment on the payment of attorney’s fees and costs. To hold otherwise would unfairly penalize the prevailing party.

We therefore affirm the trial court’s rulings in all respects.


author: FARMER, J.

text:
    Shirley K. BEMENDERFER, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Division of Real Estate, State of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D05-4162.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 9, 2007.

      Scot E. Samis of Abbey Adams Byelick Kiernan Mueller & Lancaster, LLP, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
    Jennifer A. Tschetter, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.
   FARMER, J.

In this license disciplinary hearing the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (DBPR-DRE), charged a real estate broker with five counts of technical accounting violations not involving any defalcation. After a formal hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found her guilty only on counts (4) and (5), exonerating her of the other charges. The ALJ recommended a penalty of suspension for one year, probation for one year, a fine and remedial education. The Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) adopted all of DBPR-DRE’s exceptions, as well as its recommendation that the suspension be reduced to 90 days because of mitigating circumstances. On appeal we reverse an increased penalty improperly imposed during a relinquishment of our jurisdiction to the agency for the limited purpose of correcting the final order. We remand with instructions to FREC to enter an order restoring the penalty initially imposed after the final hearing on the recommended order.

DBPR-DRE had filed 13 exceptions to the ALJ’s recommended order. More specifically, DBPR-DRE had objected to the ALJ’s exoneration of the licensee on counts (1) and (8). DBPR-DRE also objected to the recommended penalty on the grounds that it was a departure from the agency’s penalty guidelines. At the final hearing before FREC, DBPR-DRE requested that the licensee be found guilty of all charges except count (2). Conceding that a guidelines penalty of one-year as found by the ALJ would amount to a “severe hardship” on the licensee, DBPR-DRE also requested only a 90-day suspension, a longer probation, and a greater fine.

FREC adopted all of DBPR-DRE’s exceptions. A number of these exceptions, however, involved the agency reweighing the evidence and altering findings of fact of the ALJ supported by evidence. Inexplicably FREC found her guilty on all charges. For the penalty, however, FREC adopted the recommendation of DBPR-DRE and imposed only a 90-day suspension, two-years of probation, a larger fine and remedial education.

Acting pro se, the licensee appealed the final order to this court. Shortly after the appeal was filed, however, DBPR-DRE prepared and filed a joint motion to relinquish jurisdiction to FREC. The stated purpose was to “correct” the final order. No longer represented by counsel, the licensee was said to have authorized DBPR-DRE to say that she joined in the motion. We granted the motion and specified a period of relinquishment.

Upon relinquishment, DBPR-DRE then filed a motion for reconsideration with FREC, the material part of which says:

7. A review of the records of the proceedings reveals that ... [FREC] weighed the evidence and substituted [FREC’s] own evaluation of the evidence for the findings of fact made by the ALJ. In addition, [FREC] made supplemental findings of fact without sufficiently articulating in the Final Order the basis for the actions of [FREC].
8. It is black letter law that an agency may not reweigh evidence ..., judge the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret evidence anew. Brown v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Comm., 667 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
9. An administrative agency is not permitted to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or interpret the evidence to fit its ultimate conclusions. Moreover, an agency may not rely on its own expertise to reverse the administrative law judge’s finding that a particular statute was not violated. Gross v. Department of Health, 819 So.2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
10. Thus, a rehearing on the consideration of the Recommended Order and Petitioner’s Exceptions to the Recommended Order is proper.

DBPR-DRE’s motion closed with a prayer that FREC:

“grant the Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, vacate the Final Order, reconsider the Recommended Order and enter an Amended Final Order, together with any other such relief deemed just and proper.”

On the same day as this motion was filed, DBPR-DRE served the licensee with a notice scheduling a hearing before FREC twelve days later. She promptly faxed a letter to DBPR-DRE advising that she would be undergoing surgery, and it was unlikely that she could attend.

Treating her letter as a request for a continuance, FREC proceeded with the hearing in her absence. Counsel for DBPR-DRE advised FREC that if the continuance were granted, the agency might lose jurisdiction because the period of relinquishment was soon to' expire. One member moved to deny the motion for a continuance, stating:

“We’re liable to lose jurisdiction if we grant it.... We’re not going outside the record. It’s not as though she’s prejudiced by not being here. She’s not an attorney, not that non-attorneys can’t make persuasive arguments. But I don’t think there’s prejudice to her by denying it.”

FREC denied a continuance. At that point DBPR-DRE withdrew all of its exceptions to the recommended order of the ALJ and requested that FREC simply adopt the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as to all counts. FREC proceeded to do so. DBPR-DRE requested that the original suspension of 90 days be readopted, together with the period of probation, the fine, and the remedial education. At this point, however, things went strangely awry.

Counsel for FREC “advised” the commission that an eight-year suspension is the guideline penalty for a violation based on section 475.25(1)(e) (authorizing punishment for any violation of chapter 475 or of any rule or order arising under chapter 455 or chapter 475). Thereupon, a commissioner immediately moved for an 8-year suspension. The motion did not consider the stipulation of DBPR-DRE that even a one-year suspension would be a severe hardship on the licensee, that in moving for reconsideration the agency had not sought to change the penalty in any way, and the licensee has been given no notice that the original penalty was subject to, or might be, increased upon reconsideration. The motion was summarily adopted. A written order was entered several weeks later, which we now review as the final order in the case after it was returned to this court.

There are a number of reasons why we cannot accept FREC’s modification of the final order’s penalty during relinquishment. First, neither the motion for relinquishment filed in this court, nor the companion motion for reconsideration filed with FREC, gave the licensee any notice or warning that an increase in the penalty would be sought or considered. To the contrary, the motion for reconsideration conveyed only a request that the original final order be modified to restore the findings of fact of the ALJ, which supported guilt on only counts (4) and (5) of the five charges against her. As the motion itself made clear, FREC had no authority to substitute its own fact-finding for the ALJ’s. Djokic v. Dep’t Bus. & Prof. Reg., 875 So.2d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). FREC is not empowered to bypass the ALJ’s factual exoneration on three of the five charges simply by reweighing the evidence and making contrary findings. Gross v. Dep’t of Health, 819 So.2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Brown v. Criminal Justice Standards & Training Comm’n, 667 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Even if proper notice had been given, an increase in the penalty would have been unauthorized and improper under the circumstances of this case. DBPR-DRE had never sought or recommended an eight-year suspension in the original proceedings. Nor had the subject of an eight-year suspension been raised at the original final hearing before FREC. Thus while we recognize the superior expertise and authority of an agency in fixing penalties within the authorized statutory range for disciplinary violations, we agree with licensee that the procedure for imposing administrative punishment must still comport with due process. See Chrysler v. Dep’t of Prof. Reg., 627 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (denial of due process where licensee had no notice that additional allegations would be considered); Celaya v. Dep’t. of Prof. Reg., 560 So.2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (board violated physician’s due process rights by considering matters not charged in complaint).

The request of DBPR-DRE to return the case to FREC after the appeal had been filed was plainly nothing more than a recognition that the final order was subject to reversal on appeal because of FREC’s obvious reweighing of evidence to support its attempt to find licensee guilty on all counts in spite of the ALJ’s resolution to the contrary. Nothing in the motion for relinquishment indicated any purpose to have FREC reconsider the penalty with a view to increasing it.

It is simply beyond dispute that DBPR-DRE waived any attempt to impose a suspension of 8 years by declining to seek such a penalty in the original proceeding. To the contrary, the exceptions filed by DBPR-DRE specifically acknowledge and stipulate the severe hardship that even a one-year sentence would impose. Under these circumstances, we find a substantial violation of due process in FREC’s unilateral imposition of the maximum penalty possible during a relinquishment intended merely to correct its fact-finding errors in the original final hearing.

Moreover, the rule of DBPR-DRE setting forth its guidelines expressly allows the agency to stipulate to a penalty more lenient than the guidelines provide. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61J2-24.001. This is in keeping with the legislative policy behind the statutory requirement that minor violations be appropriately treated without the severity intended for violations endangering public welfare. See § 455.2273(2) Fla. Stat. (2006) (“it [is] the legislative intent that minor violations be distinguished from those which endanger the public health, safety, or welfare; ... that such penalties be consistently applied by the board.”). The licensee was exonerated of charges of culpable breach of trust, failure to deliver funds, and the failure to maintain funds properly. The guilty findings dealt solely with a second failure to prepare accounting records properly.

The DBPR-DRE guideline calling for an eight-year suspension applies to violations of section 475.25(1)(e). That statute authorizes a suspension not to exceed 10 years if the licensee “has violated any of the provisions of this chapter or any lawful order or rule made or issued under the provisions of this chapter or chapter 455.” § 475.25(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2006). In a statutory listing of some 20-odd possible violations by real estate brokers, that is a “catch-all” for any violation of a statute or rule — major or minor. FREC’s use of the “catch-all” provision in this instance threatens to make a “catch-all” provision swallow the other “catch-only”, more particularized, provisions when it comes to punishment. That would make the penalty guidelines largely meaningless. We are led by our comparable thinking in an analogous use of a “catch-all” in another circumstance:

“The drafters of the (Florida) [Evidence] Code felt that one of the chief reasons for the adoption of a code of evidence was to lend certainty and predictability to the law of evidence. The inclusion of a ‘wide-open’ or ‘catch-all’ exception to the hearsay rule, similar to the ones in the Federal Rules, would have negated this purpose.”

R.U. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 782 So.2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Similarly, in this case FREC’s use of a “catch-all” may be authorized by section 475.25(1)(e), but the manner of its use would negate the purpose of section 455.2273(2) that penalties be imposed under a policy of distinguishing minor violations from more serious ones endangering the public. Although licensee was charged with violations theoretically endangering the public, she was exonerated of those charges and found guilty only of the comparatively minor violation charged under section 475.25(1)(e). Allowing FREC’s application of the 8-year guideline to the minor accounting violations is to permit administrative punishment for the more serious charges not proven. That, too, would both negate the policy of section 455.2273(2) and be contrary to due process.

Reversed with instructions to reinstate the 90-day suspension.

GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

      . DBPR-DRE's administrative complaint alleged: (1) culpable negligence or breach of trust, under § 475.25(1)(b); (2) failure to account for or deliver funds, under § 475.25(1)(d)(1); (3) failure to maintain trust funds properly, under § 475.25(1)(1c); (4) failure to comply with an administrative rule requiring licensee to properly prepare monthly written escrow account reconciliations, under § 475.25(1)(e); and (5) being guilty of a second offense or conduct showing assets may not be safety entrusted to her, under § 475.25(1)(o).

      . Counsel told FREC that DBPR-DRE had already filed a motion with this court seeking an extension of the period of relinquishment, which we in fact unknowingly granted shortly after the hearing was held.

      . “Recognizing that a 1-year suspension may impose a severe hardship upon Respondent, [DBPR-DRE] requests a minimum of a ninety-day suspension with appropriate education plus a fine of $2,500 or more.”


author: BROWNING, C.J.

text:
    Troy P. VILLAR, Appellant, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Appellee.
    No. 1D06-3702.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 14, 2007.
    Troy P. Villar, pro se, Appellant.
    Kim Fluharty, General Counsel, and Anthony Andrews, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   BROWNING, C.J.

Troy P. Villar (Appellant) alleges the Florida Parole Commission must schedule his parole hearings every two years and refund a lien on his inmate trust account. We affirm as to the rescheduling of parole hearings but reverse as to the lien claim. See Yasir v. McDonough, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1459, — So.2d -, 2006 WL 1419271 (Fla. 1st DCA May 25, 2006); Cox v. Crosby, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D310, — So.2d-, 2006 WL 176681 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.26, 2006), review granted by McDonough v. Cox, 924 So.2d 809 (Fla.2006). We direct the circuit court to order reimbursement of any funds that may have been withdrawn from Appellant’s account to satisfy the improper lien order.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Joseph LIVINGSTON, Appellant, v. James R. McDONOUGH, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Appellee.
    Nos. 1D06-2082, 1D06-2084.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 14, 2007.
    Joseph Livingston, pro se, Appellant.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Linda Horton Dodson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   BROWNING, C.J.

Joseph Livingston (Appellant) petitions this Court for relief as to two disciplinary reports and liens imposed on his inmate trust account. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on the mandamus petitions because they were untimely, but reverse the trial court’s imposition of original and appellate liens on Appellant’s inmate trust account. See Yasir v. McDonough, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1459, — So.2d -, 2006 WL 1419271 (Fla. 1st DCA May 25, 2006); Cox v. Crosby, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D310, — So.2d-, 2006 WL 176681 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.26, 2006), review granted by McDonough v. Cox, 924 So.2d 809 (Fla.2006). We direct the circuit court to order reimbursement of any funds that may have been withdrawn from Appellant’s account to satisfy the improper lien orders.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Rickey J. CARTER, Appellant, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Appellee.
    No. 1D06-4384.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 14, 2007.
    Rickey J. Carter, pro se, Appellant.
    Kim M. Fluharty, General Counsel, and Bradley R. Bischoff, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The circuit court erred by construing appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as a petition for writ of mandamus and dismissing it as successive. The parole-revocation issue is properly raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the issue has not been addressed on the merits in either the circuit court or in this court. We reverse and remand with directions to the circuit court to transfer the petition to the county where appellant is incarcerated. Because there are no fees permitted in a habeas proceeding, imposition of a lien against appellant’s inmate account was also error.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

BARFIELD, KAHN, and PADOVANO, JJ., Concur.


text:
    James RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D06-1270.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 14, 2007.
    Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and M.J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Daniel A. David, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

James Richardson appeals the revocation of his probation for violation of conditions (4) and (8) of his probation terms. The record supports the circuit court’s findings regarding these violations. Further, as to the report from the independent lab, this court has rejected the argument, based on Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), that such reports are inadmissible in revocation proceedings. See Peters v. State, 919 So.2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (affirming revocation of community control, finding “testimonial hearsay” rule set forth in Crawford inapplicable to revocation proceedings, and certifying question of great public importance to Florida Supreme Court), review granted, 924 So.2d 809 (Fla.2006).

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.


text:
    Charles WASSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D07-0760.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 14, 2007.
    Jeanine L. Cohen of Cohen & DePaul, Tampa, for Appellant.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the “Initial Brief of the Appellant,” which the Court treats as a response to its order of March 8, 2007, the Court has concluded that the order on appeal is not an appealable order. See e.g., Dixon v. State, 616 So.2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

BARFIELD, KAHN, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.


text:
    Luis GUEVARA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D07-1304.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 16, 2007.
    Lynn Overmann of Kubiliun & Associates, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
    No appearance required for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without prejudice to appellant filing a sufficiently pled motion.

GUNTHER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


text:
    B.C., a Child, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 4D07-718.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 16, 2007.
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and John Pauly, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Monique E. LTtalien, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief to correct an error in an opinion issued in a prior term of court. See Williams v. State, 947 So.2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We grant the petition to the extent necessary to correct a portion of B.C. v. State, 947 So.2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Upon remand, the lower court is not bound by our direction to “indicate that B.C. is placed in a ‘low risk residential program.” Id. at 512.

Petition Granted.

STEVENSON, C.J., POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.


text:
    Jerome JERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D06-1590.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 16, 2007.
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Diane F. Medley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We grant the public defender’s motion to withdraw as appellate counsel. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The Anders brief identified one minor sentencing error which we write to address while affirming in all other respects.

The public defender’s fee imposed in this case is stricken because the trial court did not give appellant notice of his right to contest the amount of the fee. § 938.29(5), Fla. Stat. (2005); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1). See also Smiley v. State, 590 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Hostzclaw v. State, 561 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). On remand, the fee may be reimposed after compliance with the rule. Jones v. State, 624 So.2d 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The defendant need not be present for resentencing. Id.

STEVENSON, C.J., GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.


text:
    Dwayne ZOOK, Appellant, v. Lester JOHNS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Elizabeth Johns a/k/a Elizabeth B. Johns, Appellee.
    No. 4D05-3937.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 16, 2007.
    Dwayne S. Zook, West Palm Beach, pro se.
    Aubin Wade Robinson of Chartered Law Firm of Aubin Wade Robinson, Royal Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order determining homestead status, without prejudice to Zook’s continuing to pursue his claim against the estate.

GUNTHER, STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.


text:
    Robert GILLESPIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D06-2212.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 16, 2007.
    Keith A. Pierro and Joel Hirschhorn of Hirsehhorn & Bieber, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellant.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm without prejudice for appellant to pursue post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

WARNER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.


text:
    CITY OF LAFAYETTE v. Darrell DESORMEAUX City of Lafayette v. Michelle Marie Desormeaux.
    No. 2006-KP-1730.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Lafayette City of; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, Lafayette City Court, Nos. CT2004-17303, CT2004-17304, CC2004-4084, CC2004-4085, CC2004-4083,; 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 108132; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 06-00460.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jack KING.
    No. 2006-K-1903.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
    Prior report: La.App., 935 So.2d 354.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 235,808; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 41,083-KA.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Harry BOYER.
    No. 2007-KK-0476.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Boyer, Harry; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 433652, 433653; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KW 2508.

Granted.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    Pamela WARREN, Theresa Rene Warren and Sarah Warren Jimenez v. LOUISIANA MEDICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Jeffrey A. Lamp, M.D., Robyn B. Germany, M.D., Sandra Moody, NP-C, and Family Health of Louisiana, Inc.
    No. 2007-CC-0492.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. et al.; Lamp, Jeffrey A. M.D.; Germany, Robyn B. M.D.; Moody, Sandra NP-C; Family Health of Louisiana Inc.;— Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 501,839; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 0412R.

Granted.


text:
    Gary L. RING, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, and the Division of Weights and Standards.
    No. 2007-C-0179.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Louisiana State of et al.; Transportation & Development, Dept. of; Weights & Standards, Division of; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 481-767; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 1601.

Granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the claims of the proposed class representatives have prescribed. See Ring v. State, DOTD, 02-1367 (La.1/14/03), 835 So.2d 423. Should the trial court find that the claims of the proposed class representatives are not prescribed, then it is instructed to reconsider plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in light of the concerns raised in Judge McDonald’s dissenting opinion in the court of appeal.

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

JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ.


text:
    DISPLAY SOUTH, INC., et al. v. GRAPHICS HOUSE SPORTS PROMOTIONS, INC., d/b/a GH Imaging and Ghimaging.com.
    No. 2007-CC-0197.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 505,446; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 1778.

Granted. Based on the trial court’s minute entry, we find the trial court contemplated that a written judgment would be signed, making the June 5, 2006 judgment the “ruling” at issue for purposes of Rule 4-3. See Kosmitis v. Bailey, 96-1573 (La.10/4/96), 680 So.2d 1167. Accordingly, the ruling of the court of appeal is set aside, and the case is remanded to the court of appeal to rule on the merits of the application.

KIMBALL, J., would deny the writ.

JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ.


text:
    M.J. FARMS, LTD. v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0573.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re JMR Oil Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Catahoula, 7th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 24,055; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01483.

Granted. Transferred to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. See 07-CA-0450 and 07-CA-0787.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Shawn DRAKE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0351.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re State of Louisiana, applying for Rehearing of this Court’s Order dated September 15, 2006, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Division H, No. 9-02-168; Court of Appeal First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 1186.

Denied.


text:
    Byron BRYANT v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, American Home Assurance Company and Don Johnson.
    No. 2006-CC-1692.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re American Home Assurance Company, applying for Rehearing of this Court’s order dated March 16, 2007; Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. D, No. 530,187; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 0684.

Rehearing denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant a rehearing.

VICTORY, J., would grant a rehearing.

WEIMER, J., would grant a rehearing.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Dr. Marion A. LANASA.
    No. 2007-C-0182.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Barbara LaNasa, Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated March 16, 2007; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Division M, No. 614,622; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-CA-561.

Reconsideration granted. Application will be considered on the merits.


text:
    Kwan ALLEN v. PROFESSIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES.
    No. 2006-CC-2811.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Kwan Allen, applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated March 9, 2007; Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court, Division B, No. 49,705; to the Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit, No. 06-764.

Not considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, Section 6.


text:
    In the Matter of Hillward FRUGE.
    No. 2007-OC-0021.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Fruge, Hillward; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated March 9, 2007; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court, Div. B, No. 96-C-2365; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 06-925.

Denied. Untimely.


text:
    In re Armer BRIGHT.
    No. 2007-OB-215.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Bright, Armer; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 9, 2007; to the Louisiana State Bar Association.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Janet THIBODEAUX v. ST. CHARLES GAMING COMPANY, INC., d/b/a Isle of Capri Casino—Lake Charles.
    No. 2007-CC-0445.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Thibodeaux, Janet; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2005-3437; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01467.

Motion not considered. Writ not timely filed.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edward A. LOWERY Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0806.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Lowery, Edward A. Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 354193; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KW 578.

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. Joshua THOMPSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1562.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Thompson, Joshua; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 108605; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 2306.

Denied.


text:
    CITY OF LAFAYETTE v. Darrell DESORMEAUX City of Lafayette v. Michelle Marie Desormeaux.
    No. 2006-KP-1710.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Desormeaux, Darrell; Desor-meaux, Michelle Marie; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, Lafayette City Court, Nos. CT2004-17303, CT2004-17304, CC2004-4084, CC-2004-4083, CC2004-4085,; 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 108132; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 06-00460.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Mary ULOHO.
    No. 2006-KP-1863.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Uloho, Mary; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 01-1827; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-KH-410.

Denied.


text:
    William POWELL v. Richard STALDER, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, Linda Ramsay, Assistant Secretary of Adult Services, O. Kent Andrews, Warden, and Priscilla Pitre, Records Analyst/Time Computator of Allen Correctional Center.
    No. 2006-CI-1873.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Powell, William; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 521,027; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 1077.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Shannon C. FERGUSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1940.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Ferguson, Shannon C.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 08-161766, 04-165082; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KW 0102.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jessie J. WILEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1941.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Wiley, Jessie J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tensas, 6th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 69,510; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 41517-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph RICHARDSON.
    No. 2006-KP-1947.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Richardson, Joseph; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 421-579; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-K-0468.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jackie WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1948.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Williams, Jackie; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 270-333; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-K-0254.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Melvin JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1949.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Johnson, Melvin; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 360-731; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-K-0719.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Melissa Ann REBARDI v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1951.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Rebardi, Melissa Ann; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 00-155,010; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KW 0612.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Quincy WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1952.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Williams, Quincy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Richland, 5th Judicial District Court, Div. A, No. F-2001-258; to the Court of Appeal, -Second Circuit, No. 41543-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Earl CRUM v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1953.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Crum, Earl; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 5-94-1922; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KW 0803.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tori L. JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1954.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Jones, Tori L.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 340524; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KW 0465.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael Amon RACHAL, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1955.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Rachal, Michael Amon Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C7873; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 06-00480.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Anthony BOULT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1956.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Boult, Anthony; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 168,573; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 41557-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James W. GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1957.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Green, James W.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 43,094.

Denied. See, e.q., Deloch v. Whitley, 96-1901, p 1 (La.11/22/96), 684 So.2d 349; see also Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 352-55 (6th Cir.1998).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Fred C. BEVERLY V. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1958.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Beverly, Fred C.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 266,815; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 06-00590.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyrone CHEVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1959.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Chevis, Tyrone; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 17,694 + ; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KA 2076.

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. Rodney TEMPLE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1960.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Temple, Rodney; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 370-257; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-K-0717.

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:
    Lionel EDWARDS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1961.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Edwards, Lionel;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 80-1261.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Christoher K. PERCY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1963.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Percy, Christopher K.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 98-6381; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-KH-341.

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; 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. Joseph WALKER, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1964.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Walker, Joseph Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. E, Nos. 98-1844, 98-455; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 06-00297.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gill W. JASMINE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1974.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Jasmine, Gill W.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 96-11; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-KH-489.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State 93-2330 (La 9/05/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Willie FULLILOVE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1975.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Fullilove, Willie; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 98-3922; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-KH-481.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles PERRY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1976.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Perry, Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 290868; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KW 0875.

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. Joseph P. RICHARDSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1977.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Richardson, Joseph P.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 421-579; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-K-0468.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyrone CHEVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-2254.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Chevis, Tyrone; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 17,694; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005-KA 2076.

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 of Louisiana v. Montgomery David MALHIOT.
    No. 2006-K-2352.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Malhiot, Montgomery David; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 238,113; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 41,175-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joe GALLIANO.
    No. 2006-K-2367.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Galliano, Joe; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review,Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 02-460; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KA-0962.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry Dean ROBERTSON.
    No. 2006-K-2391.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Robertson, Larry Dean; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 164,532; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KA 0037.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Johnny Lee CAPERS.
    No. 2006-KO-2399.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Capers, Johnny Lee; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 235,108; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 41,231-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James THOMAS.
    No. 2006-KO-2403.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Thomas, James; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 401111, 413898; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KA 2210.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James C. SYLVE, Jr.
    No. 2006-K-2427.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Sylve, James C. Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 381276; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KA 0420.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Daniel A. CAPLES.
    No. 2006-KO-2466.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Caples, Daniel A.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 0000; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KA 2517.

Denied.


text:
    Thalia RENFRO v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RR, et al.
    No. 2007-C-0303.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Transportation and Development Department of; Louisiana State of; — Defendant/s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2002-000506-E; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 06-952.

Denied.

VICTORY, J„ would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael BROOKS.
    No. 2007-KK-0332.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 447-366; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-K-1601.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    TEXACO EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, INC. v. HILCORP ENERGY COMPANY.
    No. 2007-CC-0352.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Bridgeline Gas Distribution LLC; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 98-71298-C; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01311.

Denied.


text:
    Roy RASPANTI v. E. John LITCHFIELD and Berrigan, Litchfield, Schonekas, Mann, Traina and Thompson, L.L.C. Roy Raspanti v. E. John Litchfield and Berrigan, Litchfield, Schonekas, Mann, Traina and Thompson, L.L.C.
    No. 2007-C-0367.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Berrigan Litchfield Schonefas Mann Trainor and Thompson L.L.C.; Litchfield, E. John et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 02-2350; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2006-CA-0331, 2005-CA-1512.

Denied.

KIMBALL, J., would grant.


text:
    Tina Lynette WATKINS v. Dr. Richard BARRY.
    No. 2007-C-0373.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund; — Other; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 94-596; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 06-858.

Denied.


text:
    John DOE, Mary Doe and Oscar C. Russell Jr. Versus ABC Corporation, DEF Corporation, XYZ Corporation, and Hibernia Corporation Consolidated With: Charles J. Shaw, Jr. Versus Hibernia National Bank and Hibernia Corporation Consolidated with: John Doe, Mary Doe and Oscar C. Russell, Jr. v. ABC CORPORATION, DEF Corporation, XYZ Corporation, and Hibernia Corporation.
    No. 2007-C-0379.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Hibernia Corporation; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, Nos. 96-11743, 94-8087; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2004-CA-1806, 2004-CA-1807, 2005-CA-0292.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Jerry BEARD v. SEACOAST ELECTRONICS, INC.
    No. 2007-C-0394.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Beard, Jerry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, No. 2005-06476; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-CA-1244.

Denied.

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

KIMBALL, J., would grant the writ.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    GOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SUES & RUNDELL v. Tommie Mack GRANGER.
    No. 2007-C-0421.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Granger, Tommie Mack; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 205,470; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 06-859.

Denied.


text:
    TEXACO EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, INC. v. HILCORP ENERGY COMPANY.
    No. 2007-CC-0423.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Perrin, Jonas et al.; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 98-71298-C; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01528.

Denied.


text:
    LOUISIANA SAFETY ASSOCIATION OF TIMBERMEN SELF INSURERS FUND v. COURTNEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF ALEXANDRIA, INC., Courtney Equipment Company, Inc., and Transwaste, Inc.
    No. 2007-C-0443.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Courtney Construction Co. of Alexandria Inc. et al.; Transwaste Inc.; Courtney Equipment Co. Inc.; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Winn, 8th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 33718-96; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 41,564-CA.

Denied.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0469.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re C.H. Fenstermaker & Associates Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01591.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Farhad KHALIQ v. PROGRESSIVE SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2007-C-0471.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Progressive Security Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, Alexandria City Court, No. 102231; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 06-1207.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0474.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Settoon Construction; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01639.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0477.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Antill Pipeline Construction; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01612.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0479.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Sorrento Pipeline Company; Enterprise Products Co.; Fugro Chance Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01656.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0488.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Denbury Resources Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01608.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Janet ALIPIO v. Terry CROTWELL, State of Louisiana Through Louisiana Department of Agriculture and the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
    No. 2007-CC-0493.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 111,343; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 2235.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0494.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re T. Baker Smith & Sons Inc.; Continental Casualty Company; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01626.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0495.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re El Paso Field Services Management Inc.; Southern Natural Gas; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01607.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0497.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re: ConocoPhillips Company; Louisiana Land & Exploration Co.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01610.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0498.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Amerada Hess Corporation et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01640.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0501.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Texaco Pipelines L.L.C.; Texaco Petrochemical Pipeline L.L.C.; Union Oil Company of California; Bridgeline Holdings LP; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01609.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0502.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Hunt Oil Company; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of -St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01605.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Tommie Mack GRANGER v. J. Ogden MIDDLETON.
    No. 2007-C-0506.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Granger, Tommie Mack; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 219,018; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 06-1351.

Denied.


text:
    Timothy BUTTERFIELD v. TURNER INDUSTRIES.
    No. 2007-C-0507.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Butterfield, Timothy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 03, No. 04-03348; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 06-1098.

Denied.

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


text:
    LOUISIANA SAFETY ASSOCIATION OF TIMBERMEN SELF INSURERS FUND v. DANI’S CATFISH & STEAK HOUSE, INC.
    No. 2007-C-0508.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Dani’s Catfish & Steak House Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Winn, City Court of Winnfield, No. 902-02; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 41,809-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Kenneth JOHNSON, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, Through DOTD, et al. Keith Baham, et al. v. H & S Construction Co., Inc., et al. Narcisse Thibodeaux, et al. v. State of Louisiana, Through DOTD, et al.
    No. 2007-C-0510.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Transportation and Development Department of; Louisiana State of; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 99-0460, 99-0950, 99-1555; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). 06-898, 06-899, 06-900.

Denied.


text:
    ELEVATING BOATS, INC. v. PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES, Plaquemines Parish School Board and Plaquemines Parish Sheriffs Office.
    No. 2007-C-0513.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Plaquemines Parish School Board; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 43-889; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-CA-1208.

Denied.


text:
    COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INS. CO. v. O’Neal JONES, Jr.
    No. 2007-C-0515.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 104636-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 06-1277.

Denied.

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


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION—WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0516.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Berry Brothers General Contractors; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01642.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0519.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re C & C Technologies; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01627.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Mary Ann DEVINE and Lanier Devine v. Malise PRIETO, Clerk of Court and Michael N. Pittman.
    No. 2007-CC-0520.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Pittman, Michael N.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, Nos. 2004-10778, 2004-10806; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 2058.

Denied.


text:
    Robert Gene WEBB v. PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY, Recreational District No. 1, The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, XYZ Management Company, ABC Insurance Company and 123 Insurance Company.
    No. 2007-C-0521.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Webb, Robert Gene; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2003-13866; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CA 0849.

Denied.


text:
    Marilyn Louise DEVILLE v. Richard S. SALTERS.
    No. 2007-CC-0523.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Salters, Richard S.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2006-4131; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 07-00022.

Denied.


text:
    Donald W. CLARK v. VULCAN CHEMICAL INVESTMENTS LLC and Controlled Maintenance Inc.
    No. 2007-C-0524.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Clark, Donald W.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 77,796; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 06 CA 0725.

Denied.


text:
    Delton AUGUSTINE, Jr. v. Johnny GRIFFIN, et al.
    No. 2007-C-0532.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Republic Vanguard Ins. Co.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 04-6014; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 06-568.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant to amend trial courts’ judgment to allow dismissal without prejudice.


text:
    LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION-WEST, et al. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0537.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Florida Gas Transmission Company; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 68-091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-01645.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Melanie RUZEK and Mark Seiler v. REPUBLIC WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Hanover Insurance Company, Citizens Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, U-Haul Rental Company and Dana Ensing.
    No. 2007-C-0539.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Ruzek, Melanie et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2005-4665; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-CA-0878.

Denied.


text:
    Roosevelt JACKSON and His Wife Johnette Jackson v. TIRE DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. and Regional Transit Authority.
    No. 2007-OC-0540.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Jackson, Roosevelt et ah; Jackson, Johnettte; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 99-18949; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-CA-1213.

Denied.


text:
    Donald DOMINIO v. The FOLGER COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0541.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Dominio, Donald; T.T.C. Inc.;— Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 1994-9496; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-C-0172.

Denied.


text:
    ELEVATING BOATS, INC. v. PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES, Plaquemines Parish School Board and Plaquemines Parish Sheriff’s Office.
    No. 2007-C-0549.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Parish of Plaquemines et al.;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 43-889; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-CA-1208.

Denied.


text:
    James PICKERING v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0563.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Pickering, James; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 99-3668; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 07-00172.

Denied.


text:
    Nancy Davis JUDSON, Secretary/Treasurer Hall’s Mortuary, Inc. v. Hall DAVIS, IV, President Hall’s Mortuary, Inc.
    No. 2007-CC-0622.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Judson, Nancy Davis; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 32,738; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 2237.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of D.H. and E.G.F. v. A.E.F.
    No. 2007-CJ-0673.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re A.E.F.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. J-1434-2003; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 06-1041.

Denied.


text:
    C.L.S. v. G.J.S.
    No. 2007-CJ-0710.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re G.J.S.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, Nos. 99-1554, 04-14471; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2005-CA-1419, 2005-CA-1420.

Denied.


text:
    Milbon DUPRE, et al. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2007-CC-0745.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re Louisiana State of; Transportation and Development Department of; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 04-C-2348; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 07-00293.

Denied.


text:
    Louvenia DAVIS, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Margaret Allen, Deceased v. ST. FRANCISVILLE COUNTRY MANOR, L.L.C.
    No. 2007-CC-0481.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2007.
   In re St. Francisville Country Manor L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 18543; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 2144.

Denied.


author: ROLAND L. BELSOME, Judge. BAGNERIS, J.,

text:
    Stefanie TREMBLAY, Wife of/and Ronnie Tremblay, Sr., Individually, and on Behalf of their Minor Child, Ronnie Tremblay, Jr. and Linda Authement, Wife of/and Jay Authement, Individually, and on Behalf of their Minor Child, Jaylin Authement v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and Shelley Becker Bock.
    No. 2005-CA-0956.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    March 21, 2007.

      David E. Caruso, Jr., Sidney D. Torres, III, Law Offices of Sidney D. Torres, III, APLC, Slidell, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
    James A. Stapp, Law Offices of Harold G. Toscano, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
    (Court composed of Chief Judge JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG, Judge PATRICIA RIVET MURRAY, Judge, DENNIS R. BAGNERIS SR., Judge LEON A. CANNIZZARO JR., and Judge ROLAND L. BELSOME).
   ROLAND L. BELSOME, Judge.

| pístate Insurance Company appeals the decision of the district court awarding Appellees, Stefanie Tremblay, $42,715.00 in damages, her minor child, Ronnie Tremblay Jr., $4,140.00 in damages and Jaylin Authement $40,305.00 in damages. We affirm.

FACTS

On November 4, 2001, Stefanie Trem-blay, Jaylin Authement and Ronnie Trem-blay, Jr. were traveling in an automobile operated by Mrs. Tremblay when her automobile collided with Shelly Bock’s automobile. Mrs. Tremblay was traveling southbound on Paris Road, and Ms. Bock was traveling down a side street approaching Paris Road. Ms. Bock proceeded through a stop sign, crossed two lanes of traffic on Paris Road, and struck Mrs. Tremblay’s vehicle. None of the individuals involved in the accident required emergency care as a result.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After a trial on March 9, 2005, the district court awarded the Appellees | ^damages as follows: Stefanie Tremblay $40,000.00 for general damages and $2,715.00 for special damages; Stefanie Tremblay and Ronnie Tremblay, Sr., on behalf of their minor child, Ronnie Trem-blay, Jr., $4,000.00 for general damages and $140.00 for special damages; and Linda Authement and Jay Authement, on behalf of their minor child Jaylin Authement, $37,000.00 in general damages and $3,305.00 in special damages. It is from this judgment that Allstate appeals.

Assignments of Error

Allstate offers the following five assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in failing to find any fault on the part of Stephanie Tremblay because the evidence shows that Mrs. Bock had preempted the intersection when she was struck by Mrs. Tremblay’s vehicle; (2) the trial court erred in awarding $4,000.00 for pain and suffering for Ronnie Tremblay, Jr. because there was insufficient evidence at trial to support such an award; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $40,000.00 to Stefanie Tremblay for general damages; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $37,000.00 to Jaylin Authement; and (5) the trial court erred in awarding $1,590.00 for medical bills from Dr. Salvador Murra and Crescent City MRI for treatment rendered to Jaylin Authement because there was insufficient evidence that those bills were incurred as a result of the November 2001 accident.

Standard of Review

Appellate courts review factual findings under the “manifest error” or “clearly wrong” standard. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989). The Louisiana Supreme Court has developed a two-part test for reviewing a factfinder’s | .^determinations. Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La.1987). This bifurcated test states that, to disturb the findings of a trial court: 1) the reviewing court must conclude that the trial court’s findings have no reasonable factual basis, and 2) the reviewing court must determine that the record evidences that the findings are clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Mart, 505 So.2d at 1127. Thus, the reviewing court must view the record in its totality to determine whether the factfin-der was clearly wrong. Stobart v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. and Dev., 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993). This rationale stems from the fact that the trial court has a “better capacity to evaluate live witnesses.” Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716, 724 (La.1973). However, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder, because “where two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Stobart, 617 So.2d at 883. The majority of the issues presented in this case are factual questions and will be reviewed using the above standard.

Conversely, errors of law are reviewed de novo by the appellate courts. Norfleet v. Lifeguard Transp. Service, Inc., 2005-0501 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/17/06); 934 So.2d 846; Balseiro v. Castaneda-Zuniga, 04-2038, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/17/05); 916 So.2d 1149, 1153.

Assignment of Error # 1

Allstate maintains that the accident was at least partially caused by Mrs. Tremblay because Ms. Bock had nearly crossed the lane of travel in the intersection prior to striking Mrs. Tremblay’s vehicle. Accordingly, Allstate argues, this demonstrates that Ms. Bock pre-empted the intersection. Allstate relies on Tillman v. Massey, 445 So.2d 749, 752 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/12/84) wherein |4this Court concluded that “[t]he doctrine of pre-emption has a two-fold effect; it frees the preempting party of negligence and it imposes negligence on the party against whom it is claimed.” Thus, Allstate argues that Ms. Bock stopped at the stop sign, determined that it was safe to cross, and then proceeded, subsequently causing damage to the passenger-side bumper of Mrs. Tremblay’s automobile.

We find that Allstate erroneously relies on Tillman in this case, because this Court also concluded in Tillman that “[i]n order for the doctrine of pre-emption to apply to a motorist who has entered the intersection before the traversing vehicle, the one seeking to invoke this doctrine must show that he entered the intersection at a proper speed and sufficiently in ad-vanee of the vehicle on the intersecting street to permit him to cross without requiring an emergency stop by the other vehicle.” Id. (emphasis added).

Likewise, LSA-R.S. 32:123(B) provides that:

Except when directed to proceed by a police officer or traffic-control signal, every driver and operator of a vehicle approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall stop before entering the cross walk on the near side at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection. After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right of way to all vehicles which have entered the intersection from another highway or which are approaching so closely on said highway as to constitute an immediate hazard, (emphasis added).

Ms. Bock’s own testimony does not support the argument that she pre-empted the intersection. First, Ms. Bock testified that she was not certain whether or not she came to a complete stop before Centering the lanes of traffic on Paris Road. Next, Ms. Bock testified that she did come to a complete stop before crossing over the median. Specifically, Ms. Bock testified that she crossed the first two lanes of traffic, stopped, and then looked to see whether she could observe any oncoming traffic in the last two lanes of traffic before proeeed-ing. Ms. Bock further testified that she did not know of any reason why she did not observe Mrs. Tremblay’s vehicle in oncoming traffic before crossing the roadway.

Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 32:123(B), however, Ms. Bock had a duty to yield, whether or not she actually stopped at the stop sign or the median, to allow Mrs. Tremblay to clear the roadway before proceeding. Additionally, the record does not support the assertion that Ms. Bock pre-empted the intersection. Therefore, we agree with the trial court’s finding that only Ms. Bock was at fault with regard to the accident, and find that this assignment of error is without merit.

Assignment of Error # 2

Allstate urges that the record lacks evidence showing that Ronnie Tremblay, Jr. suffered $4,000.00 of pain and suffering. Allstate maintains that while Ronnie, Jr. was treated on three occasions by James Shoemaker, D.C., he did not exhibit pain and suffering for any longer than four days after the accident. Moreover, Allstate argues that Appellees were only seeking an award between $2,000.00 and $3,500.00 in general damages. Conversely, Appellees argue that the award of $4,000.00 for pain and suffering of the two-year-old was sufficient because the testimony of Dr. Shoemaker regarding Ronnie Jr’s injuries, coupled with the testimony of his mother, Mrs. Tremblay, support the factfinder’s award.

Ifilu a Joint Trial Order filed in the district court on June 15, 2004, the Appellees cited Krepps v. Hindelang, 97-980 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/15/98), 718 So.2d 519, 525, wherein the court increased a general damages award from zero to $2,500.00 for a three-month old with a soft tissue injury to the neck, in support of their request for an award between $2,000.00 and $3,500.00 in general damages for Ronnie Tremblay’s similar injuries. Additionally, the record contains testimony from Ronnie Jr.’s treating physician, Dr. Shoemaker regarding his injuries. Dr. Shoemaker testified that Ronnie Jr.’s mother indicated that after the accident, the child was agitated, vomiting, and pointing to his neck, and that upon examination, Dr. Shoemaker observed tenderness and sensitivity in his neck and a ten percent reduction in cervical mobility, in addition to noting that the paravertebral and trapezius muscles were tender and taut.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he standard for appellate review of general damage awards is difficult to express and is necessarily non-specific, and the requirement of an articulated basis for disturbing such awards gives little guidance as to what articulation suffices to justify modification of a generous or stingy award.” Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993). The Court further noted, however, that “the theme that emerges from Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239, 158 So.2d 149 (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1976), and through Reck [v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498 (La.1979)] to the present case is that the discretion vested in the trier of fact is “great,” and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.” Youn, 623 So.2d at 1261. Thus, although l7“[r]easonable persons frequently disagree about the measure of general damages in a particular ease,” it has been consistently held that “[i]t is only when the award is, in either direction, beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the effects of the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances that the appellate court should increase or reduce the award.” Id.

In this case, the record reveals that Ronnie, Jr. suffered injuries sufficient to justify the court’s $4,000.00 award, and we do not agree that the trial court abused its vast discretion. Therefore, we find that this assignment of error is without merit.

Assignment of Error # 3

In its third assignment of error, Allstate argues that an award of general damages of $40,000.00 to Stefanie Trem-blay is excessive. We disagree.

Mrs. Tremblay was diagnosed with cervical and thoracic injuries and was treated by Dr. James Shoemaker for those injuries from November 5, 2001 until February 3, 2003. Dr. Shoemaker’s deposition testimony and medical report indicate that Mrs. Tremblay complained of headaches, finger numbness, stiffness, lack of mobility, back and shoulder pain, and muscle spasms throughout the course of her treatment. Dr. Shoemaker also testified that the cervical and thoracic injuries suffered by Mrs. Tremblay were a result of the November 2001 accident, |seven though Mrs. Tremblay had been in a previous car accident and had pre-existing lower back complaints.

Additionally, although Dr. Shoemaker testified that he suggested Mrs. Tremblay should receive treatments for her injuries once a week or more, Mrs. Tremblay testified that she was able to receive treatment from Dr. Shoemaker only once every two weeks, and then only once or twice per month. In total, Mrs. Tremblay was treated by Dr. Shoemaker on twenty-one occasions over a fifteen-month period for the injuries resulting from the November 2001 accident, with occasional gaps in treatment.

In Sciambra v. Jerome Imports, Inc., 2005-0260 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/14/05), 921 So.2d 145, 153 this Court concluded that:

[although Dr. Altman testified to his regular treatment plan, consisting of physical therapy three times a week for the first two weeks of treatment and twice a week thereafter, it is uncontro-verted that the plaintiff attended only two therapy appointments. Since there was no evidence that financial or other considerations prevented the plaintiff from complying with this schedule, the jury reasonably could infer that he was not in such pain that he was moved to cooperate in the prescribed therapy protocol. The jury also heard and viewed evidence that the plaintiff failed to attend nine of his twenty-three scheduled appointments with Dr. Seltzer. The implication again is reasonable that his pain was not so severe as to cause him to cooperate with the treatment plans of his treating physicians. From the evidence adduced at trial, we cannot say that a reasonable jury could not have concluded that $26,000 was reasonable compensation for the plaintiffs past and present physical pain.

However, in Friedmann v. Landa, 573 So.2d 1255, 1259 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), this Court concluded that a $35,000.00 award for pain and suffering was |snot an abuse of discretion when the plaintiff underwent treatment for approximately one year for similar injuries.

In this case, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion by awarding $40,000.00 to Mrs. Tremblay for her injuries. In the parties’ Joint Trial Order, included in the Appellees’ quantum citations for Mrs. Tremblay and Jaylin Authement was the statement that the range of general damage awards for each “would fall between $15,000 and $35,000.” Additionally, the fact that Mrs. Tremblay missed some of her appointments with Dr. Shoemaker is not relevant to the issue of Mrs. Tremblay’s damages; the facts of this case are inapposite to those in Seiam-bra, supra. Therefore, we find that this assignment of error is without merit.

Assignment of Error # 4

Allstate argues that the district court abused its discretion in rendering an award of $37,000.00 for general damages to Jaylin Authement, the minor child of Jay and Linda Authement. Additionally, Allstate alleges that the testimony of Dr. Shoemaker reveals that Jaylin’s sporadic complaints demonstrate uncertainty on her part as to her injuries. Finally, Allstate argues in the alternative that Jaylin failed to mitigate her damages by not taking full advantage of the services provided by Dr. Shoemaker.

A review of the record reveals that testimony from Jaylin and Linda Authement and from Dr. Shoemaker support the award in accordance with Friedmann v. Landa, 573 So.2d 1255, 1259 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), supra. Dr. Shoemaker testified that he treated Jaylin from November 5, 2001 to March 14, 102003, and that Jaylin’s injuries for which she sought treatment during that time frame were a result of the November 2001 accident. Dr. Shoemaker further testified that Jaylin suffered from tightness and pain in the cervical thoracic area, muscle spasms, minor reduction of mobility in the neck and lower back area, loss of cervical curve, and intermittent numbness and tightness in her left arm, leg, and fingers throughout the course of her treatment.

Likewise, Jaylin testified at trial that she hurt her arm, neck and back in the collision, and that she was unable to participate in her modern dance classes for two or three years, something she had enjoyed since she was a small child. Additionally, Jaylin testified that she was not permitted to participate in the physical education at school for a few months, and that her injuries interfered with other everyday activities such as carrying a book bag to and from school. Similarly, Linda Authement testified at trial that Jaylin suffered from numbness in her arm and hand, neck, back, and am pain, and that Jaylin was not able to attend her dancing school classes after the accident.

An award for damages must be reviewed in a light most favorable to the party who prevailed at trial. Harvey v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, 2000-1877, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/26/01), 799 So.2d 569, 576, writ denied, 2002-0003 (La.3/15/02), 811 So.2d 910. An appellate court may not overturn an award for damages unless it is so out of proportion to the injury complained of that it shocks the conscience. Id. at p. 11, 799 So.2d at 577. Finally, we note again the well-established principle that the factfin-der has vast discretion hfin determining a general damages award. Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La.1993); Moore v. Kenilworth/Kailas Properties, 2003-0738 (La.App. 4 Cir.2004), 865 So.2d 884, 890.

We find that there is ample evidence in the record which reveals that the $37,000.00 award was not out of proportion to Jaylin’s injuries. Therefore, because we do not believe the trial court abused its discretion, we find that this assignment of error lacks merit and decline to disturb the award of $37,000.00 in general damages to Jaylin Authement.

Assignment of Error # 5

Finally, Allstate argues that Jaylin had an MRI performed by Dr. Salvador Murra at a cost of $1,590.00, which Allstate maintains was not related to Dr. Shoemaker’s diagnosis or injuries as a result of the accident. We disagree.

Dr. Shoemaker testified in his deposition that he spoke with Jaylin’s mother regarding a referral to Dr. Murra for an evaluation of her symptoms, and that he then reviewed the MRI studies that were conducted by Dr. Murra. Thus, the record demonstrates that Dr. Murra performed an MRI that was consented to and subsequently evaluated by Dr. Shoemaker. Nevertheless, Allstate argues that because the MRI showed no serious injury, it was an unnecessary expense. Allstate further alleges that since the findings of the MRI were not affirmatively related to the accident that the bill for the MRI is unwarranted.

We find that the record supports the district court’s award to Jaylin for the medical expense associated with the MRI. Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.

| ^Decree

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the finding of fault by the district court as to Ms. Bock. We further affirm the award for general damages as to Ronnie Tremblay, Jr., Stefanie Tremblay and Jaylin Authement. Finally, we affirm the award of medical expenses incurred as a result of an MRI by Jaylin Authement.

AFFIRMED.

BAGNERIS J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

BAGNERIS, J.,

concurs in part and dissents in part.

hln most aspects, I respectfully concur with the majority opinion however, I think that the award for Ronnie Tremblay was an abuse of discretion by the district court and respectfully dissent.

The record contains testimony from Ronnie Jr.’s treating physician, Dr. Shoemaker, and from his family members. His medical bills were only $140. Dr. Shoemaker testified that “I saw him (Ronnie Jr.) a couple of days after the initial exam. Everything appeared to be good. There were no major complaints offered by the mother at that time. We did a little treatment with him. And then January 11th, a couple of months later, we did a final evaluation and he was released.”

The district court erred in awarding Ronnie Jr. $4000 when the evidence fails to support that Ronnie Jr.’s injuries warrant that much. I rely on our cohorts from the Second Circuit and find that George v. Allstate Insurance Co., 32,899 (La.App. 2d Cir. 4/5/00); 758 So.2d 373, is parallel to the case at bar. In George v. Allstate Insurance Co. Jessica George, a ten-year-old girl, was diagnosed with minor neck and back injuries. She was treated by Dr. Spires on three occasions, |2did not seek further medical treatment for these injuries after her release by Dr. Spires and did not complain of pain at the time of trial. Id. at 378.

The record reveals that Ronnie, Jr. may have suffered some minor injury as well as periodic crying. I am of the opinion that an award of $500 is a sufficient amount of damages for the two-year-old.

      . The actual award was given to Linda Authement and Jay Authement on behalf of their minor child, Jaylin Authement, who was fourteen years old at the time of the accident.

      . Paris Road is four lanes wide, with two lanes going each direction.

      . We also note that Ms. Bock testified that at the time of the accident, the weather was clear and sunny; that the streets were dry; and that there were no obstructions to her visibility.

      . Mrs. Tremblay's testimony also fails to support Allstate’s argument that Ms. Bock preempted the intersection. Mrs. Tremblay testified, contrary to Ms. Bock's recollection, that she observed Ms. Bock proceed directly through the first two lanes and the median of Paris Road without stopping at all. Mrs. Tremblay further testified that when she saw Ms. Bock enter her path, that she attempted to brake and avoid the collision.

      .Ronnie Tremblay, Jr.’s medical bills totaled $140.00.

      . Paravertebral muscles are muscles located along the vertebra or in the vertebral column; trapezius muscles cover the upper and back portions of the shoulders and neck and primarily control movement of the shoulder blades.

      . Dr. Shoemaker testified that Mrs. Tremblay suffered, among other injuries, a decreased cervical range of motion of approximately 40 percent; a loss of mobility in her left shoulder of approximately 30 percent; a bruise on the left upper arm; muscle spasms in her lumbo-sacral, thoracic and cervical regions; "cervical hypolordosis,” which "means normally the cervical spine ... should curve forward toward the jaw within certain ranges, and this was less than expected”; and “rotational mal-position at the C3 through T8 spinal levels.”

      .Mrs. Tremblay returned to Dr. Shoemaker for treatment after being involved in another accident on October 4, 2004.

      . Mrs. Tremblay was involved in an accident in March 2001; treated for neck and back injuries with a different chiropractor on three occasions; and testified that at the time of the November 2001 accident, she had recovered completely from her March 2001 injuries.

      . Mrs. Tremblay testified that she underwent umbilical hernia surgery during the summer of 2002; the hernia was caused by a pregnancy in 1999. During her recovery from the hernia surgery, Mrs. Tremblay did not seek treatment from Dr. Shoemaker. Additionally, Mrs. Tremblay testified that she missed treatment for a few weeks on another occasion when she had to travel out of town.

      .After being involved in an automobile accident, the plaintiff in Friedmann suffered neck and back pain; tenderness and muscle spasms in the neck and shoulder area; tenderness; limited range of motion in the neck and spine; and underwent extensive physical therapy and received steroid injections.

      . Dr. Shoemaker testified that Jaylin was initially released from treatment on January 11, 2002, and then again on September 6, 2002, but returned on both occasions with symptoms and loss of mobility until her last visit on March 14, 2003.

      . Dr. Murra did not testify at trial.