text:
    SUN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, Appellant, v. AMERICAN LAND LEASE, INC., a foreign corporation; and Asset Investors Operating Partnership, L.P., a foreign limited partnership, Appellees.
    No. 2D05-2829.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 10, 2006.

      Christopher S. Kuhn of Justin G. Joseph, P.A., Tarpon Springs, for Appellant.
    David D. Eastman, and Carol S. Grond-zik of Lutz, Bobo, Telfair, Eastman, Tallahassee, for Appellees.
   CANADY, Judge.

In this case involving a dispute arising under chapter 723, Florida Statutes (2004), the Florida Mobile Home Act, Sun Valley Homeowners, Inc., appeals the final summary judgment in favor of Anerican Land Lease, Inc., and Asset Investors Operating Partnership, L.P. (collectively referred to as American Land Lease), the owner and operator of Sun Valley Estates, a mobile home park in Pinellas County. The summary judgment was based on the circuit court’s ruling that Sun Valley Homeowners was without legal authority to bring suit on behalf of the homeowners residing in Sun Valley Estates. Because we conclude that the circuit court correctly determined that Sun Valley Homeowners had not complied with a statutory provision that a homeowners’ association has standing to bring suit under chapter 723 only if the association has obtained the written consent of a majority of the homeowners, we affirm.

In its motion for summary judgment, Anerican Land Lease challenged the status of Sun Valley Homeowners as a homeowners’ association established under the requirements of section 723.075. The motion also challenged Sun Valley Homeowners’ compliance with the standing requirement set forth in section 723.037(1). The circuit court ruled that American Land Lease was entitled to summary judgment on both grounds. In view of our conclusion that the trial court correctly granted the summary judgment- on the basis of Sun Valley Homeowners’ failure to comply with section 723.037(1), we will not address the challenge based on section 723.075.

Before discussing the requirement set forth in section 723.037(1) and its application to this case, we will address Sun Valley Homeownets’ 'claim — which we reject — that American Land Lease waived the issue of Sun Valley Homeowners’ compliance with section 723.037(1) by failing to raise the issue in its answer to Sun Valley Homeowners’ complaint.

Waiver of the Lack of Capacity to Sue Issue

Sun Valley Homeowners’ amended complaint contained an allegation in paragraph 2 that Sun Valley Homeowners was “operating as a [hjomeowners [association” under chapter 723 and was “acting on behalf of all mobile homeovmers in the [Sun Valley Estates Mobile Home] Park concerning a matter of common interest.” The amended complaint alleged in paragraph '4 that at a meeting on a specified date, “an overwhelming majority of [Sun Valley Homeowners’] members supported [Sun Valley Homeowners’] bringing this action.” In its answer, American Land Lease responded to the allegations in paragraphs 2 and 4 by stating: “Without knowledge and therefore denied.” None of the affirmative defenses stated in the answer made reference to Sun Valley Homeowners’ standing or capacity to bring suit in a representative capacity.

At the hearing on American Land Lease’s motion for summary judgment, counsel for Sun Valley Homeowners argued that the issues presented in the motion “were not raised in their [a]nswers [and] [a]ffirmative [d]efenses.” Counsel for Sun Valley Homeowners further argued: “I believe that under Rule 1.140(b), Florida Rule of Civil Procedure, they are precluded from raising these issues at this particular time.” Counsel for American Land Lease argued in response that the owner had raised the issue by way of a specific negative averment in answering paragraph 2 of the amended complaint: “We stated we were without knowledge which is of course a denial.” Counsel for Sun Valley Homeowners then stated to the court that “you will find absolutely nothing regarding lack of standing or any standing issue” in the answer or affirmative defenses.

The trial court’s response to argument of counsel was twofold. First, the court observed that “[without knowledge is a denial with respect to that issue.”. Second, the court pointed out to counsel for Sun Valley Homeowners that “the [summary judgment] motion itself .:. puts you on notice” and that “the real question is whether or not you are prejudiced and surprised here today which doesn’t bear into your argument.” Counsel for Sun Valley Homeowners made no response to the court’s comments.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(a) provides,'"in pertinent part, that “,[w]hen a party desires to raise- an issue as to the ... authority of a party to sue ... in a • representative ' capacity, that party shall do so by specific negative averment which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge.” The Author’s Comment with respect to this provision states: “Lack of capacity must be raised ... by specific negative averment (not merely by pleading lack of knowledge).” The view expressed in this commentary that pleading lack of knowledge is not sufficient to raise the issue of capacity-to sue follows the federal case law interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(a)¡ from which rule 1.120(a) is derived. See Plumbers Local Union No. 519 v. Serv. Plumbing Co., 401 F.Supp. 1008, 1011 (S.D.Fla.1975) (stating that defendant’s “deni[al of] its knowledge of plaintiffs’ capacity ... is insufficient to raise the issue of plaintiffs’ capacity”); Tractortechnic Gebrueder Kulenkempft & Co. v. Bousman, 301 F.Supp. 153, 155 (E.D.Wis.1969) (“A mere denial of information is not the equivalent of a specific negative averment.”). We agree that a denial based on lack of knowledge is not sufficient to state a “specific negative averment.”

It is unquestionable that a failure to comply with the requirement of rule 1.120(a) for a specific negative averment may result in a waiver of the capacity issue that precludes a party from raising the issue subsequently. See McDonough Equip. Corp. v. Sunset Amoco West, Inc., 669 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). It is equally unquestionable that a party’s failure to make a specific negative averment in an answer may — in appropriate circumstances — be remedied by a subsequent pleading. This flows from the provisions of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190, under which “[l]eave of court [to amend pleadings] shall be given freely when justice so requires,” rule 1.190(a), and “the court must disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties,” rule 1.190(e).

Rule 1.120(c) contains a provision similar to the “specific negative averment” requirement of rule 1.120(a). Under rule 1.120(c), “[a] denial of performance or occurrence [of a condition precedent] shall be made specifically and with particularity.” (Emphasis added.) In Ingersoll v. Hoffman, 589 So.2d 223 (Fla.1991), a medical negligence case, the court considered whether a defendant had failed to comply with the requirement of rule 1.120(c) and had thereby waived the right to subsequently challenge the plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy a condition precedent to bringing suit. At issue was the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the applicable medical malpractice prelitigation notice requirements. The plaintiffs’ complaint “contained a specific allegation that the [plaintiffs] had complied with all conditions precedent to the filing of the suit.” Id. at 224. “In his answer, [the defendant] made only a general denial of the allegation of compliance with all conditions precedent. The answer contained no reference to the [plaintiffs’] failure to comply with [the applicable pre-suit notice requirements].” Id. The court held that such a general denial was not sufficient to meet the requirement of rule 1.120(c): “A general denial is not one ‘made specifically and with particularity.’ ” Id.

The court went on to hold that the defendant’s failure to comply with the requirements of rule 1.120(c) had resulted in the waiver of the issue by the defendant. In reaching this conclusion, the court focused on the existence of prejudice to the plaintiff resulting from the raising of the issue after the statute of limitation had run. The court stated: “We do not suggest that under appropriate circumstances a defendant could not amend the answer so as to specifically deny the performance of a condition precedent. The test as to whether an amendment to a pleading should be allowed is whether the amendment will prejudice the other side.” Id. at 225.

The Ingersoll court’s focus on prejudice is consistent with rule 1.190’s policy of permitting liberal amendment of pleadings.

Public policy favors the liberal amendment of pleadings so that cases can be tried on their merits. [Rule] 1.190 provides that ‘leave of court [to amend pleadings] shall be given freely when justice so requires.’ ... The failure to permit amendment constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile.

EAC USA, Inc. v. Kawa, 805 So.2d 1, 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citations omitted). “A denial of leave to amend a pleading is an abuse of discretion where the proffered amendment indicates that a plaintiff can state a cause of action. The same holds true where a defendant demonstrates he could prevail with the assertion of a properly available defense.” Wayne Creasy Agency, Inc. v. Maillard, 604 So.2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (citations omitted).

In the instant case, the trial court erred in stating that the answer contained a specific negative averment concerning Sun Valley Homeowners’ capacity to sue in a representative capacity. But the trial court remedied this error by focusing on the absence of any showing of prejudice to Sun Valley Homeowners. In effect, after first ruling that the denial in the answer was a sufficient specific negative averment, the trial court then ruled that, in any event, Sun Valley Homeowners had failed to establish that it was prejudiced by American Land Lease’s raising the capacity to sue issue in its motion for summary judgment. In doing so, the trial court effectively treated the summary judgment motion as encompassing a motion for leave to amend. See Block v. First Blood Assocs., 988 F.2d 344, 350 (2d Cir.1993) (affirming action of trial court which “construed [defendant’s] summary judgment motion also as a motion to amend” to assert the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense). Because there was no effect “[on] the substantial rights of the parties,” the trial court was justified in “disregarding]” the technical “defect” in American Land Lease’s pleading. Rule 1.190(e).

Sun Valley Homeowners has at no point — either before the trial court or in this appeal — presented any argument that it was prejudiced by American Land Lease’s raising the capacity issue in its motion for summary judgment. Indeed, when the trial court raised the issue of prejudice, Sun Valley Homeowners’ counsel stood mute. Since Sun Valley Homeowners failed in the trial court proceedings to make any showing of prejudice, the trial court properly permitted American Land Lease to raise the capacity to sue issue by way of the motion for summary judgment.

The Standing Requirement of Section 723.037(1)

Section 723.037 deals with the resolution of disputes concerning “any increase in lot rental amount or reduction in services or utilities provided by the park owner or change in rules and regulations.” § 723.037(1). The statute begins with a requirement that a park owner give advance written notice of such increases in rental amount, reductions in services or utilities, or changes in rules and regulations. The statute outlines a process for conducting meetings for the discussion of disputes. § 723.037(4). The statute also sets forth the process for the initiation of formal mediation. § 723.037(5). The details of the mediation process are set forth in section 723.038. Section 723.0381 authorizes the filing of actions in circuit court when mediation has failed.

The question at issue here turns on the interpretation of the concluding sentence of section 723.037(1), which states: “The homeowners’ association shall have no standing to challenge the increase in lot rental amount, reduction, in services or utilities, or change of rules or regulations unless a majority of the affected homeowners agree, in writing, to such representation.” (Emphasis added.) Sun Valley Homeowners argues that this provision of the statute applies to challenges raised in mediation proceedings but not to challenges brought by filing suit in circuit court. The undisputed facts before the trial court established that a majority of the affected homeowners had not agreed in writing to being represented by Sun Valley Homeowners in the lawsuit against American Land Lease. Accordingly, if the standing requirement of section 723.037(1) applies to lawsuits, the trial court correctly determined as a matter of law that Sun Valley Homeowners did not have standing to bring suit.

Section 723.037(1) does two things. First, it sets forth the notice requirements imposed on park owners with respect to rental increases, reductions in services or utilities, and changes in rules and regulations. Second, it sets forth the standing requirement imposed on homeowners’ associations which seek to “challenge” such an action by park owners. The legislature quite logically chose to begin the statutory provisions governing disputes between park owners and homeowners with the notice requirements imposed on park owners and the standing requirement for the participation of homeowners’ associations in such disputes.

Under the statutory scheme, the filing of a lawsuit constitutes a “challenge” to which the standing requirement of section 723.037(1) applies. The verb challenge means “to take exception to” or to “call in question.” Random House Unabridged Dictionary 343 (2d ed. 1993). Initiating a lawsuit is no less of a challenge to, for example, an increase in lot rental amount than is the initiation of mediation. If the legislature had intended for the standing provision to apply only to mediation proceedings, the provision in section 723.037(1) would have specifically referred to mediation and would not have used the broad term challenge.

The fact that the initiation of mediation is addressed in section 723.037 while the initiation of litigation is addressed in section 723.0381 does not affect the analysis of the meaning of the standing provision in section 723.037(1). Given its broad formulation, the reach of the standing provision is neither explicitly nor implicitly limited to the particular statutory section in which it appears.

Finally, we observe that it would be an odd policy indeed to have a more restrictive standing requirement for the initiation of mediation — which by its very nature is not binding — than 'for the institution of litigation. Nothing in the statutory scheme indicates that the legislature adopted such a policy.

Conclusion

The trial court correctly permitted American Land Lease to challenge Sun Valley Homeowner’s capacity to sue in a representative capacity by way of the motion for summary judgment. The trial court also correctly determined that the undisputed evidence established that because Sun Valley Homeowners had failed to comply with the applicable standing requirement of section 723.037(1), it lacked the capacity to bring suit in a representative capacity. Accordingly, the final summary judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

      . We note that the court in Amber Glades, Inc. v. Leisure Associates Ltd. Partnership, 893 So.2d 620, 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), made the following statement in dicta: "Section 723.037(1) requires written authorizations to commence mediation. It is unclear in the statute whether a mobile homeowners association must also have such authorization to bring a lawsuit once the mediation fails.” As is apparent from our explanation of our holding in the instant case, we have concluded that the statutory provisions are not unclear.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Samuel WILLIAMS.
    No. 2005-KK-1560.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2006.
   PER CURIAM.

| granted in part; denied in part. In this capital prosecution, the state has charged the defendant in a single count with the aggravated rape of a female under the age of 12 years committed between October 1999, and April 2000. The state has alleged on record in the trial court that “the victim in this matter was raped twice over a period of time,” that she became pregnant by “the second intercourse” and that the fetus was then aborted. The state has possession of DNA test results of samples taken from the aborted fetus indicating a high probability that defendant or another male relative in his genealogical line was the father.

If the state elects not to present this DNA evidence at trial to corroborate the victim’s testimony that she had sexual intercourse with defendant, then we agree with the court of appeal that Louisiana’s rape shield law, La.C.E. art. 412, bars any evidence purporting to show that defendant’s teenage son had a sexual relationship with the victim in the time frame alleged in the grand jury indictment and that he was the likely father of the aborted fetus. Louisiana’s statute generally precludes 1^evidence of specific instances of the victim’s past sexual behavior, defined as “sexual behavior other than the sexual behavior with respect to which the offense of sexually assaultive behavior is alleged.” La.C.E. art. 412(F). If the state does not make an issue of the aborted fetus and its likely paternity, the question of whether defendant’s son engaged in sexual behavior with the victim that resulted in the terminated pregnancy has no relevance to the allegation that defendant raped the victim and any evidence in that regard would undercut the purposes of rape shield laws to “protect victims of rape from being exposed at trial to harassing or irrelevant questions concerning their past sexual behavior.” Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 146, 111 S.Ct. 1743, 1745, 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991).

However, if the state elects to present at trial evidence of DNA tests results indicating a high probability that defendant fathered the aborted fetus, whether it elects to present that evidence alone or in connection with other DNA evidence excluding possible paternity by defendant’s son, then we agree with the trial court that art. 412 does not and cannot, given a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses and present a defense, preclude the defense from “raising] any and all reasonable doubts as to the validity of the DNA results” even if that challenge tends to show that the aborted fetus was the product of the victim’s sexual behavior with another person. See Fed. R.Evid. 412, Advisory Committee Notes (“Where the prosecution has directly or indirectly asserted that the physical evidence originated with the accused, the defendant must be afforded an opportunity to prove that another person was responsible.”). In the context of record assertions by the state that its prosecution of defendant rests on two acts of sexual intercourse, the second of which led to impregnation of the victim resulting in an early term abortion of the fetus, scientific evidence regarding the identity of | ¡¡the father is not evidence relating to the victim’s past sexual behavior as specifically defined in art. 412(F) but evidence relating to the charged criminal act(s) placed at issue and made directly relevant to the question of defendant’s guilt or innocence by the state. See Teemer v. State, 615 So.2d 234, 236 (Fla.App. 3rd Dist.1993)(rape shield statute did not preclude DNA evidence that semen found in victim’s vagina was not defendant’s because such evidence was offered not to establish victim’s prior sexual conduct but to bolster defendant’s claim of misidentification).

To the extent that defendant’s motion purporting to provide notice under La.C.E. art. 412 did not include an accompanying statement of the evidence that he intends to present at trial, the trial court did not have before it, and we express no opinion with regard to, the question of whether substantively or procedurally the defendant may present other evidence of specific instances of prior sexual behavior by the victim to show that another person was the “source of semen or injury” for purposes of the exception provided by La.C.E. art. 412(B)(1) to the general rule of preclusion.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Alfred PENNINGTON and Melvin Bradwell.
    No. 2006-KK-0597.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2006.
   PER CURIAM.

Granted. A judgment granting a motion to suppress generally presupposes a ruling on the merits of a defendant’s claim that the state has secured physical evidence, statements, or identifications, in an unconstitutional manner. When the trial court ruled on the motions, less than a month after institution of this prosecution for armed robbery in violation of La. R.S. 14:64, the court had alternative means other than summary grant of the pre-trial motions to promote the orderly and expeditious administration of justice. Cf. State v. Mims, 329 So.2d 686 (La.1976) (verdict of not guilty presupposes a trial at which facts have been placed at issue and resolved in defendant’s favor; trial court may not enter a judgment of acquittal before swearing any witnesses to punish the state for its lack of preparation). It appears that the trial court granted the various motions to suppress in the present case to punish the state for its lack of preparation, as opposed to disposing of the motions on the merits of their underlying constitutional claims, some as to which the defendants had the burden of proof. Therefore, the ruling is vacated and this case is remanded for retrial of the motions.


text:
    In re Boolus J. BOOHAKER.
    No. 2006-B-0451.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2006.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent commingled client funds with his own funds and failed to render an accounting to his client. After the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property of clients or third parties) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted .and that Boolus J. Boohaker, Louisiana Bar Roll number 3233, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months, with all but six months deferred.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED' that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

JOHNSON, J., would reject consent discipline and assigns reasons.

TRAYLOR, J., would reject consent discipline.

JOHNSON, J. would reject consent discipline.

| disbarment is the baseline sanction where an attorney has commingled and converted client funds. See, ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standard 4.11 ; RE: Armant, 04-2232 (La.11/19/04), 888 So.2d 768; In re Joe L. Smith, 98-0619 (La.5/8/98), 710 So.2d 241; In Re: Leonard Parker, 96-2697 (La. 1/ 24/97), 687 So.2d 96; In Re: J. Gregory Caver, 97-0823 (La.5/1/97), 693 So.2d 150; In Re: Ronald Welcker, 97-0825 (La.6/3/97), 694 So.2d 918; In Re: Mitchell Ferrand, 97-0811 (La.6/20/97), 695 So.2d 1332. An attorney’s actions of commingling and converting client funds violate the Rules- of Professional Conduct 1.15 (safekeeping property of clients or third persons). In Re: Gros, 03-3076 (La.4/23/04), 871 So.2d 1091; In re Lewis, 03-1245 (La.10/3/03), 856 So.2d 1191; In Re: Patrick, 01-1419 (La.3/15/02), 815 So.2d 804; Louisiana State Bar Association v. Haylon, 250 La. 651, 198 So.2d 391 (La.1967). This Court has determined that the sanctioning of ah attorney “depends upon tbe seriousness of the offense, fashioned in the light of the purpose of the lawyer discipline, taking into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Louisiana State Bar Association v. O’Halloran, 412 So.2d 523 (La.1982). This Court is mindful that the “disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct.” In Re: Bilbe, 02-1740 (La.2/7/03) 841 So.2d 729.

|2Pisbarment is warranted, where: 1) an attorney acted in bad faith and contrary to the interest of his client, failed to inform his client of the status of litigation, settled a case without the knowledge of the client, negotiated settlements and converted his client’s funds for own use; 2) his conduct caused client actual harm, depriving client and/or third party of their funds; 3) the record shows no restitution; 4) the aggravating factors were present; and 5) the mitigating factors were not significant enough to warrant deviation from the baseline sanction of disbarment. See, Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15, In Re: Carter, 02-2066(La.10/14/02) 829 So.2d 1023. In the case sub judice, Attorney Boohaker collected funds on behalf of his client, Mr. Fourgaut, yet the attorney failed to refund those funds to his client, failed to maintain proper records to account for those funds, and failed to properly deposit those funds in a separate account, i.e. trust account. In essence, he commingled $300,000.00 collected on behalf of his client and converted his client’s funds for his personal use. His failure to properly handle his client’s funds caused those funds to be lost through Attorney Boohaker’s bankruptcy, which caused the client a substantial actual loss. This was not an isolated incident, as Attorney Boo-haker has a prior disciplinary history which include a 1988 reprimand for a similar misconduct. These incidents include: 1) an admonition in 2000 for failing to communicate with a client and neglecting a legal matter and 2) a formal private reprimand in 1988 for failing to render a timely accounting and failing to promptly refund the unearned portion of legal fee paid in advance. These aggravating factors, coupled with his substantial experience in the practice of law which began in 1976, outweigh the stipulated mitigating factors of his cooperating with the disciplinary proceeding. As this Court held in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Selenberg, 270 So.2d 848 (La.1972), an attorney’s misuse of a client’s funds represents the “gravest form of professional ^misconduct” and disbarment is warranted. Therefore, I would reject the joint petition for consent discipline.

      . Standard 4.11 provides that "Disbarment is generally, appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client’s property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.”


text:
    In re Judge Laleshia Walker ALFORD.
    No. 2005-O-2284.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 25, 2006.
   ORDER

On recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, and considering the responses thereto filed by Judge La-Leshia Walker Alford,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judge LaLeshia Walker Alford, Judge of the Shreveport City Court, State of Louisiana, be and she hereby is disqualified from exercising any judicial function during the pendency of further proceedings in this matter, pursuant to La. Const, art. V, § 25(C) and Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 27.

This order shall be effective immediately.

/a/ Jeannette T. Knoll

Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    In re Kyle M. ROBINSON.
    No. 2006-OB-0894.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 25, 2006.
   ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner, Kyle M. Robinson, is immediately eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to a probationary period of five years. The probationary period may be extended upon recommendation of the Executive Director of the Lawyers Assistance Program. During the probationary period, petitioner shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the contract executed by him with the Lawyers Assistance Program, and such other conditions as may be imposed upon him by the Executive Director of the Lawyers Assistance Program. Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.


text:
    In re James Nolan SANDOZ, Jr.
    No. 2006-OB-0831.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   ORDER

Considering the Joint Petition for Transfer to Disability Inactive Status,

IT IS ORDERED that James Nolan Sandoz, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 17130, be and he hereby is transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 22(B). Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order shall be effective immediately.

/s/ Pascal F. Calogero, Jr.

Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Stanley WASHINGTON.
    No. 2005-KO-1330.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   PER CURIAM.

|! Granted. The decision of the court of appeal is reversed, defendant’s adjudication and sentence as an habitual offender is vacated, and this case is remanded to the district court for resentencing.

In addressing defendant’s argument that he had “cleansed” his prior conviction for armed robbery, used as the basis to sentence him as a second offender for purposes of La.R.S. 15:529.1(A)(l)(a), the court of appeal calculated the applicable 10-year period under La.R.S. 15:529.1(0 from the full term date of the sentence on his prior conviction for armed robbery, September 23, 1990. The court of appeal used the full term date, despite documents in defendant’s “pen packet” indicating that he had been released from the penitentiary on January 3, 1988, because under present law, “[w]hen a prisoner committed to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections is released because of diminution of sentence pursuant to this Part, he shall be released as if released on parole.” La.R.S. 15:571.5(A)(1); see also La.R.S. 15:574.6 (“The parole term, when the board | ¡..orders a prisoner released on parole, shall be for the remainder of the prisoner’s sentence, without any diminution of sentence for good behavior.”). On that premise, the court of appeal rejected defendant’s argument that he had “cleansed” his prior conviction by the time he committed his subsequent felony offense in December, 1999, because 10 years had not elapsed from the expiration of the full term date on his prior conviction.

However, 1981 La. Acts 762, which enacted La.R.S. 15:571.5, specifically provided that “[t]he provisions of this Act shall apply to offenses committed on or after the effective date of this Act.” The act further provided an effective date of July 1, 1982. The allegations of the habitual offender bill in the present case show that the defendant committed his prior offense of armed robbery on September 12, 1980, or well before the effective date of 1981 La. Acts 762. Under former law, discharge from the physical custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections meant full discharge from the custody and supervision of the state. State v. Anderson, 349 So.2d 311, 314 (La.1977). The correct date by which to calculate the cleansing period in the present case was therefore January 3, 1988, the date on which defendant was released from the penitentiary on good time credits, and not his full term date of September 23, 1990. Assuming that he had no other intervening periods of incarceration, La.R.S. 15:529.1(0, defendant had therefore apparently “cleansed” that prior conviction by the time he committed the subsequent (instant) offense at the end of 1999.

JOHNSON, J., concurs in the grant.

TRAYLOR, J., dissents.


text:
    Emmett SPOONER, Sr. v. Attorney General Charles FOTI, the State of Louisiana, and Louisiana State Trooper Jerry Mitchell.
    No. 2005-CC-1806.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2006.
   In re Spooner, Emmett, applying for Rehearing of this Court’s order dated January 13, 2006; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th District Court Div. I, No. 475,309; to the First Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 2004-CW-2492.

Not considered. See Supreme Court Rule IX, section 6.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Paul Michael WILLIAMS, Jr.
    No. 2006-KK-0874.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 25, 2006.
   In re Williams, Paul Michael, Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 373471; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KW 0306.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James CLAYTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2064.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 26, 2006.
   In re Clayton, James; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 15514; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2004 KW 2116, 2005 KW 0645.

Denied.


text:
    Phyllis Smith ALLEN v. R. McIntyre BRIDGES, M.D.
    No. 2006-CC-0659.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 480,285-A; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 41169-CW.

Granted and remanded to the court of appeal for briefing, argument and full opinion.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Floyd TYLER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0773.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Tyler, Floyd; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. None.

Relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on an application for post-conviction relief filed on or about December 4, 2004. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the application. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph M. BROWN.
    No. 2006-KH-0807.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Brown, Joseph M.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 0.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the filing to the district court for its consideration under La.C.Cr.P. art. 701(F). The district court is directed to provide this court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ricky BREAUX v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KH-3106.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Ricky Breaux, applying for Reconsideration to this court’s action dated November 28, 2005, from the 15th Judicial District Court, Division J, No. 54488; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 04-01043.

RECONSIDERATION DENIED.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Andrew MCGRAW v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KH-3120.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re McGraw, Andrew; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts action dated November 28, 2005; Parish of Richland, 5th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 58,783; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39,559-KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Leroy BROWN, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KH-3129.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Brown, Leroy Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated November 28, 2005; Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court, Div. C, No. 46,295; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39416-KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Karston KEELEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-316.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   Karston Keelen, applying for Reconsideration to this court’s action dated December 16, 2005, from the 19th Judicial District Court, Division A, No. 2-96-476; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, 2004 KW 2246.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Wilfred GUY, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-0322.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Guy, Wilfred Sr.;Defendant(s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated December 16,2005; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 397-218 to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-K-1901.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. George David TOKMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1876.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Tokman, George David; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated December 16, 2005, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court, Div. B, Number CR-638-80.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    ATLAS IRON AND METAL COMPANY v. D. Warren ASHY.
    No. 2006-C-0296.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Atlas Iron and Metal Company;— Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 98-6143; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-458.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    Anastasia SENEGAL, Individually and as Natural Tutor of Her Minor Daughter Kierany Shelvin v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM, The Management Board for University of Lafayette Louisiana, Dr. Ray Authement, University of Louisiana of Lafayette, Susan Randol, and Our Lady of the Lourdes Regional Medical Center.
    No. 2006-CC-0335.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Senegal, Anastasia et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 488,716; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2005 CW 2416, 2005-CW 2264.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    Mary Steib Wife of/and Phillip HUGHES v. STATE of Louisiana, Nicholas P. Thorning, and the Estate, Heirs and Legatees of Nicholas P. Thorning, Including His Natural Father, Frances Thorning.
    No. 2006-CC-0399.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Steib, Mary; Hughes, Phillip;— Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 610-275; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-C-792.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    ETHEL KIDD REAL ESTATE, INC. v. Thomas ABRAMS and John Brown.
    No. 2006-C-0436.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Abrams, Thomas et al.; Brown, John; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, First City Court, No. 03-05850; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-2085.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    Tatiana OSTROWIECKI, et al. v. AGGRESSOR FLEET, LTD., et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0145.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Hasson, Wayne; — -Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, Nos. 2003-16697, 2003-16859; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1216.

Writ denied. Motion to file exhibits under seal denied.


text:
    Tatiana OSTROWIECKI, et al. v. AGGRESSOR FLEET, LTD., et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0147.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Aventuras Marítimas Okeanos S.A.; Chinchilla, Randall Martinez; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, Nos. 2003-16697, 2003-16859; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1217.

Writ denied. Motion to file exhibits under seal denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Raymond LAUGAND v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-0637.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Laugand, Raymond;' — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 383-706; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-K-2107.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Shannon BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1274.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Brown, Shannon; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 02-4173; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-KA-882.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Horacio LOPEZ v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1439.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Lopez, Horacio; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 99-152629; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0140.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph Leath JAMES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1948.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re James, Joseph Leath; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 108,026; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40153-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Carnell BOLDEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2030.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Bolden, Carnell; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 01-2223; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-KA-1000.

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. Douglas BENSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2031.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Benson, Douglas; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 279248; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005-KW-0687.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Franklin Lee GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2037.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Green, Franklin Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 116,324; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40249-KH.

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. Justin WINCHESTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2038.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Winchester, Justin; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 99 — 8019; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-540.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. William CANCIENNE, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2041.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Cancienne, William Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 01-331; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-597.

Denied.


text:
    Wesley ARMAND v. Alton BRADDOCK and Richard Stalder.
    No. 2005-CP-2048.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Armand, Wesley; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 492,317; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 0917.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ellis WILLIAMS, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2054.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Williams, Ellis Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Catahoula, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 98-3826, 98-3626; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00641.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roosevelt BAKER, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2055.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Baker, Roosevelt Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Richland, 5th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. F2003119; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39,-696-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David HAMILTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2063.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Hamilton, David; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 409-358; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0895.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence JACOBS.
    No. 2005-K-2072.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Jacobs, Lawrence; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 02^4757; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-KA-1219.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Reginald ADDISON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2078.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Addison, Reginald; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, Nos. 8-98-209, 8-98-336; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0713.

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. Willie CARR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2079.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Carr, Willie; — -Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 02-6216; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-601.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael Levon TAYLOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2088.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Taylor, Michael Levon; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 327664; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0568.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Marilyn BUSH.
    No. 2005-KP-2387.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Bush, Marilyn; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 20,958; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40736-KW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jerome MCGINNIS.
    No. 2005-K-2469.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re McGinnis, Jerome; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 03-7228; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-KA-1286.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Chance L. BUTLER.
    No. 2005-K-2510.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Butler, Chance L.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. CR-842-2003; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-297. ’

Denied.


text:
    BANK ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, As Trustee v. Marjorie Madere VELTEN a/k/a Marjorie Madere Hoffman Velten.
    No. 2006-C-0040.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Velten, Marjorie Madere a/k/a; Velten, Marjorie Madere Hoffman; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 2002-6261; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-2001.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Jo Green PARDUE.
    No. 2006-C-0125.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Platt, Charles Larry; — Other; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 482,806-B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,177-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Gerald C. PFEIFFER v. CITY OF KENNER and John Doe.
    No. 2006-C-0273.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Kenner, City of; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 565-160; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-366.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Pauline TRINCHANT v. Michael BUJOL, Katherine Keene and the Board of Supervisors for the Louisiana State University and Mechanical College.
    No. 2006-CC-0275.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Bujol, Michael et al.; Keene, Katherine; Louisiana State University and Mechanical College Board of Supervisors;— Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 04-13861; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1461.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Carla RACHAL v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE & FISHERIES, et al. David McAlpin, et ux. v. State of Louisiana, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, et al.
    No. 2006-C-0277.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Louisiana, State of et al.; Wildlife & Fisheries, Department of; Fannin, Kelly;-Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rap-ides, 9th Judicial `District Court Div. G, Nos. 203,254, 203,890; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). 05-576, 05-577.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    The STANDARD COMPANIES, INC. v. Kirk W. TRAHAN.
    No. 2006-C-0278.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Standard Companies Inc.;-Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers' Compensation District 4, Nos. 03-3171, 03-02662,; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-593.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Walter Lee PERKINS, Jr. and Betty Perkins v. GEICO INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0279.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Perkins, Walter Lee Jr. et al.; Perkins, Betty;-Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 211,415; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-01415.

Denied.


text:
    William W. SCOTT, et al. v. HISTORIC RESTORATION, INCORPORATED, et al. William W. Scott and Angie Thompson v. Historic Restoration, Inc. and 700 Commercial Mall General Partnership.
    No. 2006-CC-0282.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Historic Restoration, Incorporated et al.; 700 Commercial Mall General Partnership; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2002-01431; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2005-C-1258, 2005-C-1274.

Denied.


text:
    FUTURE TRENDS, LLC v. Juanita DE GEORGE, Chris Guillot and United Bank and Trust Company.
    No. 2006-C-0298.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re DeGeorge, Juanita et ah; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 558-442; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-355.

Denied.


text:
    William W. SCOTT, et al. v. HISTORIC RESTORATION, INCORPORATED, et al. William W. Scott and Angie Thompson v. Historic Restoration, Inc. and 700 Commercial Mall General Partnership.
    No. 2006-CC-0301.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re AIG Technical Services, Inc.; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2002-01431; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2005-C-1258, 2005-C-2174.

Denied.


text:
    Amanda BROUSSARD v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORE, et al.
    No. 2006-C-0303.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Family Dollar Store et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 04-3222; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-645.

Denied.


text:
    In the Matter of PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY CLAIM Jacqueline Marie CHAMBERS.
    No. 2006-CC-0304.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Ochsner Clinic Foundation et al.; Staffeld-Coit, Catherine M.D.; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2003-C-4812; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-00001.

Denied.


text:
    SECURTEC, INC. v. The STATE of Louisiana, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION.
    No. 2006-CC-0305.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Seeurtec, Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 536,651; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 2590.

Denied.


text:
    In the Matter of PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY CLAIM Jacqueline Marie CHAMBERS.
    No. 2006-CC-0310.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Aviner, Zvi M.D. et al.; LaHaye Center Opelousas LLC; LaHaye Center for Advanced Eyecare of Lafayette; La-Haye Total Eye Care Center; LaHaye Center for Advanced Eye Care; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2003-C-4812; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-01585.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Andre ZENO.
    No. 2006-KK-0315.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Zeno, Andre; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 07-05-0142; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 2472.

Denied.


text:
    Jesse BALSEIRO, M.D. v. Wilfrido CASTANEDA-ZUNIGA, M.D., John Ruby, Ph.D., Louisiana State University Medical Center New Orleans, Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.
    No. 2006-C-0320.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Balseiro, Jesse M.D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 95-15029; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-2038.

Denied.


text:
    Rev. Norwood THOMPSON, Jr., et al. v. BANK ONE OF LOUISIANA, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0321.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Thompson, Norwood Jr. Rev. et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 1999-17279; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1101.

Denied.


text:
    Toni Meyer Wife of/and Morris MEYER v. GREATER LAKESIDE CORPORATION d/b/a Lakeside Shopping Center, Broadwall Management, and Crum & Forster Insurance Company.
    No. 2006-CC-0322.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Greater Lakeside Corporation d/b/a; Broadwall Management; Crum & Forster Insurance Company; Lakeside Shopping Center; United States Fire Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 579-377; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-C-1010.

Denied.


text:
    PROFESSIONAL LOCOMOTIVE SERVICES, INC. and Professional Locomotive Services, Inc. d/b/a Power Services Plus v. Theron J. PELLEGRIN and Michael Lee McMillion, Mobile Services and Equipment, Inc. and Kenneth Forgey.
    No. 2006-C-0332.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Professional Locomotive Services Inc. et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 447,423; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 2207.

Denied.


text:
    Zula Mae FUSELIER, et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF the STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-C-0334.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Transportation and Development Department of; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Allen, 33th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C-2002-337; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 05-681.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Windsor DENNIS, M.D. v. Marc PERLMAN, Benjermin Perlman and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
    No. 2006-CC-0336.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Dennis, Windsor M.D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 2003-1535; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-0946.

Denied.


text:
    Dalton LANDRY v. FURNITURE CENTER.
    No. 2006-C-0358.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Landry, Dalton; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 4, No. 03-00901; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCA 05-0643.

Denied.


text:
    James E. VIVIANO, et ux. v. PROGRESSIVE SECURITY INS. CO., et al.
    No. 2006-C-0359.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Viviano, James E. et al.; Bou-dreaux, Angela; Viviano, Eva Dell; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2002-3238; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-125.

Prior report: La.App., 920 So.2d 313.

Denied.


text:
    Van MOREAU v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE, et al.
    No. 2006-C-0360.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Moreau, Van; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Allen, 33th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. C 2003-508-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 05-675.

Denied.


text:
    George M. DADE v. US AGENCIES CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
    No. 2006-CC-0362.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Dade, George M.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge City Court, No. 0206-94599; 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 532,727; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 2417.

Denied.


text:
    In re MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL CLAIM OF Diana SCOTT.
    No. 2006-C-0374.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Scott, Diana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 602-000; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-401.

Denied.


text:
    Edward J. TUCKER v. STATE of Louisiana DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
    No. 2006-CC-0393.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Louisiana, State of et al.; Transportation & Devi., Dept, of; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 2002-17864; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1413.

Denied on showing made.


text:
    Francisco E. JARAMILLO, M.D. v. David L. LOPEZ, Walker Imports, Inc., Mid-Continent Casualty Company and American National Property & Casualty Company.
    No. 2006-C-0396.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Jaramillo, Francisco E. M.D.;— Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 99-8965; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-2042.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.


text:
    Dwayne HALEY v. Cheryl G. LEARY.
    No. 2006-OC-0397.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Haley, Dwayne; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. K, No. 2002-17470; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-CA-0722.

Denied.


text:
    CITY OF NEW ORLEANS’ DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE in its Capacity as the Orleans Parish Tax Collector. v. NEW ORLEANS PADDLEWHEELS, INC. and Warren L. Reuther, Jr., Nancy M. Reuther, Duane P. Smith, James E. Smith, Jr., James E. Smith, Sr., Craig W. Smith, and Anthony G. Moore Individually, et al.
    No. 2006-C-0412.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re New Orleans Paddlewheels Inc. et al.; Smith, James E. Jr.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2003-5903; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-0836.

Denied.


text:
    Mark W. HANEY, Robert L. Haney, Jr., Ellis P. Carter, Mary Carter Stokes, Martin C. Carter, Jr., David A. Carter, Pamela Carter Cabiro, Marcelle Carter Leblanc and Ronald T. Carter v. Leonard A. DAVIS, Russ M. Herman, Delta Petroleum Company, Inc., Paul B. Maxwell, Jon Maxwell, Delta Rocky Mountain Petroleum, Inc. and Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, L.L.P.
    No. 2006-C-0413.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Haney, Robert L. Jr.; Stokes, Mary Carter; Carter, David A.; Leblanc, Marcelle Carter; Carter, Ronald T.; Carter, Martin C. Jr.; Cabiro, Pamela Carter; Haney, Mark W. et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2003-13820; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-1716.

Denied.


text:
    OMNI ENERGY SERVICES CORP. v. Steven T. STULL, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0414.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Advantage Capital Partners; Stull, Steven T. et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 04-2336; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1169.

Denied.


text:
    David Horace HARRISON & Paula Hamel Harrison v. Sandra Copeland HARRISON & James T. Harrison.
    No. 2006-C-0419.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Harrison, Sandra Copeland et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 01-2489; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,421-CA.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Bonnie ADAMS v. Ernest N. MORIAL—New Orleans Exhibition Hall Authority, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0420.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Adams, Bonnie; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 99-6808; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-0522.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.


text:
    J. Corwyn ALDREDGE, Jr., et al. v. The STATE of Louisiana, et al. Magnolia Grill of Natchitoches, Inc., et al. v. The State of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-CC-0421.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Aldredge, J. Corwyn et al.; Vinson, Ramona; Walker, Robert; Vinson, Paul D. Sr.; Magnolia Grill of Natchitoch-es; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchi-toches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 71,425(B), 72,447(B); to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-00994.

Denied.


text:
    ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY as Subrogee of Gail Keith v. DOYLE GIDDINGS, INC., and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2006-C-0425.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Giddings, Ouida S.; Giddings, Norman; Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s London; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 33387; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,496-CA.

Denied.


text:
    In re ALLIEDSIGNAL SOUTHWORKS RELEASE.
    No. 2006-CC-0430.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Alexander, Shirley et ah; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, Nos. 458,-568, 458,625, 466,963, 469,967, 469,976, 470,084; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 0002. .

Denied.


text:
    Arlon Ray WILSON v. INVACARE CORPORATION and Christus Health Northern Louisiana d/b/a Schumpert Medical Center.
    No. 2006-C-0434.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Christus Health Northern Louisiana d/b/a; Schumpert Medical Center;— Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 490381; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,507-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Shaunn Caillier-McCorvey HARDEN v. Derriel C. MCCORVEY.
    No. 2006-C-0435.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re McCorvey, Derriel C.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 02-C-2619-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-889.

Denied.


text:
    MANGANO CONSULTANTS, INC., Mangano Management, Inc., AOLC Limited Partnership and MGH Limited Partnership v. BOB DEAN ENTERPRISES, INC., St. Elizabeth’s Caring, L.L.C., Maison De’ville Nursing Home of Harvey, L.L.C. and Bob G. Dean, Jr.
    No. 2006-C-0437.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Mangano Consultants, Inc.; AOLC Limited Partnership; Mangano Management, Inc.; MGH Limited Partnership;— Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 516-154; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-449.

Denied.


text:
    Henry C. WALKER and David Ray Wammack v. The STATE of Louisiana Through the LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE AND the JUDGES OF the FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, all in Their Official Capacity.
    No. 2006-CC-0438.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Louisiana State of et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 481,701; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,-402-CW.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    George FIELDS, et al. v. Kerry CALLAHAN, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0443.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In re Zurich American Insurance Company; American Guarantee & Liability Company; Universal Compression Inc.;— Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 04-00018; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1388.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Henri BROADWAY.
    No. 2005-KP-2400.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 28, 2006.
   In ré Broadway, Henri; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 2-94-1720.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Reinier NESLO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0065.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2006.
   In re Neslo, Reinier; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 276-264.

Relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion to quash and motion for new trial filed on September 23, 2002; a postconviction application filed April 20, 2004; and a supplemental memorandum filed September 27, 2004. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the pleadings. If relator’s representation is incorrect, the district court is ordered to accept, file and act upon the pleadings which are herewith transferred to the district court.' The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Reinier NESLO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0355.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2006.
   In re Neslo, Reinier; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 276-264.

Relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion to quash and motion for new trial filed on September 23, 2002; a postconviction application filed April 20, 2004; and a supplemental memorandum filed September 27, 2004. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the pleadings. If relator’s representation is incorrect, the district court is ordered to accept, file and act upon the pleadings which are herewith transferred to the district court. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.


text:
    Geraldine OUBRE and Linda Gentry on Their Behalf as well as Other, Similarly Situated v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS FAIR PLAN.
    No. 2006-CC-0968.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2006.
   In re Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 625-567;- to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-C-257.

Stay denied, Writ denied.


text:
    Sylvanus Gordon REESE & Lola Reese v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2006-C-0097.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Reese, Sylvanus Gordon et al.; Reese, Lola; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2003-10628; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2004 CW 1443, 2004 CA 2292.

Granted.


text:
    LONDON TOWNE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION v. LONDON TOWNE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0401.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re London Towne Condominium Homeowners’ Assn.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2004-16474; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1243.

Granted.


text:
    STATE ex rel. George ALEXANDER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0006.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Alexander, George; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 244-258.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the district court with instructions to the district judge to act on relator’s motion to vacate and correct an illegal sentence filed via certified mail on May 19, 2005. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John D. POPULIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0897.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Populis, John D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 61242, 61243; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-KH-259.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the district court with instructions to the district judge to act on relator’s motion to correct an illegal sentence filed via certified mail on January 11, 2006. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment. A copy of the application is attached.


text:
    In re Clifton G. EAMES, Sr.
    No. 2006-OB-0595.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Eames, Clifton G. Sr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Permission for Admission to the Louisiana State Bar.

Denied.


text:
    Harold ALEX, Jr., et al. v. RAYNE CONCRETE SERVICE, et al.
    No. 2005-C-2520.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re On this Court’s Own Motion for Reconsideration of Order of this Court dated January 27,2006, from the Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court, Division “J”, No. 70712; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 04-1555.

Reconsideration granted on Ihe Court’s own motion. Writ granted and consolidated with 2005-C-1457 c/w 2005-C-2344.


text:
    Ursula and Edward James TUCKER v. Jerry W. SULLIVAN, M.D.
    No. 2005-C-2265.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re On this Court’s Own Motion For Reconsideration of an Order of this Court dated March 10, 2006, from the Parish Orleans, Civil District Court Div. “B”, No. 93-11691; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-1715.

Reconsideration granted on the Court’s own motion. Writ denied.


text:
    N.I.D., L.P. v. The PARISH OF WEST BATON ROUGE.
    No. 2005-C-2515.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re On this Court’s Own Motion For Reconsideration of an Order of this Court dated March 17, 2006, from the Parish West Baton Rouge, 18th JDC No. 30,478 Div. “D”; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1599.

Reconsideration granted on the Court’s own motion. Writ denied.


text:
    Shaunn Caillier MCCORVEY v. Derriel Carlton MCCORVEY.
    No. 2005-CJ-2577.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re On this Court’s Own Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 10, 2006, on Realtor’s Application for Reconsideration; from the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry, Division B, No. 02-C-2619-A; Court of Appeal Third Circuit, No. 05-174.

Reconsideration granted on court’s own motion. Writ denied.


text:
    Raymond YOCHIM, Jr. and Craig Yochim v. METAIRIE HEALTHCARE CENTER, Living Centers-East, Inc., et al.
    No. 2005-CC-2381.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re — Yochim, Raymond Jr. et al.; Yo-chim, Craig; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 17, 2006; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Division L, No. 608-103; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-C-680.

Reconsideration granted. Writ denied.


text:
    Melchor RODRIGUEZ, Jr., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of his Deceased Wife, Brenda Rodriguez, Karmen Schmidtt, as Daughter of Brenda Rodriguez, Karmen Schmidtt, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Her Minor Child, Alexzandria Bazor v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Safeway Insurance Company, and Gerald A. Parker, Jr.
    No. 2006-CC-0049.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Schmidtt, Karmen; Rodriguez, Melchor, Jr., Individually and as Administrator of the Succession of Brenda Rodriguez; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 107079; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 1991.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, section 5.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY d/b/a Canadian National/Illinois Central Railroad, Capital Marine Supply, and CTC Minerals, Inc.
    No. 2006-C-0189.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Louisiana State of; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 474,715; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2006 CW 0123, 04 CA 1789, 05 CW 0886.

Not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    BENTON SPECIALTIES, INC. et al. v. CAJUN WELL SERVICE, INC., et al.
    No. 2006-C-0515.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Petrosurance Casualty Company in Receivership; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 04-68530; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-842.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, section 5.


text:
    Dale FIRMIN v. MACHINE TOOLS, INC., Haas Automation, Inc., Pat Kane, Patrick Kane III and Susan Kane.
    No. 2006-CC-0598.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Firmin, Dale; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. C 2004-4436; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). CW 05-01381, CW 05-01347.

Not considered. Not timely filed.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kendall STEWART v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2114.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In Re Stewart, Kendall; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 97 CRI 68389; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0689.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyrone CLOFER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2115.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Clofer, Tyrone; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 18,862; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0686.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 351.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael PALMER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2116.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Palmer, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 00-K-4792; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00670.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Andrew D. GIBSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2121.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Gibson, Andrew D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 159,906; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 0359.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tirrell JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2122.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Johnson, Tirrell; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 391-159; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0773.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Terry TURNER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2128.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Turner, Terry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 75,503; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00684.

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

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Russell MILLIEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2129.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.

   In re Millien, Russell; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 10750; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0241.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Marvin COBB v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2136.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Cobb, Marvin; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 257742; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0815.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Cesar ROCA, Sr. a/k/a Cesar Balari v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2137.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Roca, Cesar a/k/a; Balari, Cesar; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 01-1422; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-661.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyrone NOEL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2139.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Noel, Tyrone; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 04-514; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-621.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Larry GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2145.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Green, Larry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Desoto, 11th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 75959; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,362-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Otis WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2146.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Williams, Otis; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 429-115; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0930.

Denied. See State ex rel. Fleury v. State, 93-2898. (La.10/13/95), 661 So.2d 488.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Randall M. ORANGE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2155.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Orange, Randall M.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 265213; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 04-00495.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Randy DECLOUET v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2159.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Declouet, Randy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 03-3655; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-660.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert R. YRLE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2160.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Yrle, Robert R.,; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 03-3922; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-KA-900.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James W. GLEASON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2161.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Gleason, James W.,; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2000-310F; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No; 40,-184-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John HARRISON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2165.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Harrison, John; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. M, No. 356585; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0580.

Denied. See State ex rel. Fleury v. State, 93-2898 (La.10/13/95), 661 So.2d 488.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donald WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2166.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Williams, Donald; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 305-606; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0868.

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:
    Doug and Angela MCDONALD v. ANGELS BY DAY, L.L.C., et al.
    No. 2005-CC-2414.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Colony National Ins. Co.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 101987; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 1511.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Roscoe Randolph JONES, Jr.
    No. 2005-KP-2437.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Jones, Roscoe Randolph Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 1343-83, 1343-83A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 05-01004.

Denied.


text:
    F. Murray BIEDENHARN v. Ricky Lee CULP d/b/a Ricky Culp’s Auto.
    No. 2005-C-2459.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Culp, Ricky Lee d/b/a; Ricky Culp’s Auto; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 01-4771; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39,680-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Derrick P. BRAMLETT.
    No. 2005-K-2553.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Bramlett, Derrick P.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, Nos. 369,397, 369,-398; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KA 0307.

Denied.


text:
    Lance H. AYERS v. ALLEN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al.
    No. 2005-CP-2574.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Ayers, Lance H.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Allen, 33th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C-2003-707; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). CW 05-01036, CW 05-00838.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P. v. Guy STOUT and Envirotech Services, L.L.C.
    No. 2005-C-2595.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 2002-19625; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-0785.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Randy DECLOUET v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0078.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re DeClouet, Randy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 03-3655; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-660.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael CASBY. State of Louisiana v. Latischa Jones. State of Louisiana v. Chester Fluence. State of Louisiana v. Leonard Smith.
    No. 2006-KK-0122.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Mental Health Advocacy Service; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, Nos. 266-650, 371-972, 413-173, 28-498; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2005-K-1223, 2005-K-1237, 2005-K-1181, 2005-K-1222.

Denied.


text:
    Angelo MCADOO and James McAdoo v. John T. NING, M.D., et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0126.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Ning, John T. M.D. et al.; Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company;' — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 73481 B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-00974.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    Timothy MELANCON v. Karen Henderson MELANCON.
    No. 2006-C-0150.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Melancon, Timothy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 98-11195; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 2569.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Cheryl King ADAMS v. William Howard ADAMS.
    No. 2006-CC-0195.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Adams, William Howard; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2003-15847; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 1733.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    KEVIN ASSOCIATES, LLC (Successor in Interest Through Merger to Yendis Properties, Inc.) v. Brett CRAWFORD, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-C-0220.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Crawford, Brett Secretary; Louisiana Department of Revenue; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 460,981; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 2227.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    John HILL; Gannett River States Publishing Corporation, d/b/a the Times of Shreveport; the News Star, Monroe; the Daily Advertiser Lafayette; the Town Talk, Alexandria; and the Opelousas Daily World; and the Louisiana Press Association v. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, East Baton Rouge Parish Communications District and Pam Porter.
    No. 2006-C-0229.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Hill, John et al.; Gannett River States Publishing Corp. d/b/a; Times of Shreveport; News Star Monroe; Daily Advertiser Lafayette; Town Talk Alexandria; Opelousas Daily World; Louisiana Press Association; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 530,363; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 1236.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    OLD METAIRIE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CLEANERS MACHINERY, INC., et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0444.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 601-842; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-C-26.

Denied.


text:
    Robert KINLER and Robert A. Millet, Jr. v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0445.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Canadian National Railroad; Illinois Central Railroad Company d/b/a;— Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 30041; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-C-20.

Denied.


text:
    COMMUNICATION EXPO, INC. and Ivory Dyson v. The CITY OF HAMMOND PARK COMMITTEE (in Part), Councilman Curtis Wilson and Willie Jackson.
    No. 2006-CC-0448.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Wilson, Curtis Councilman; City of Hammond Park Committee (in part); Jackson, Willie; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 2004-000927; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 2462.

Denied.


text:
    CITY COURT OF OAKDALE v. CITY OF OAKDALE and Honorable Bobby Abrusley. City Court of Oakdale, Through Its Duly Authorized Representative, Mayor Bobby Abrusley v. The City of Oakdale; Honorable Perrell Fuselier, Judge, City Court of Oakdale; and Delora Lovejoy, Clerk, City Court of Oakdale.
    No. 2006-C-0449.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Oakdale City of; Abrusley, Bobby Hon.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Allen, 33th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. C2005-059, C-2005-088; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). 05-1033, 05-1034.

Denied.


text:
    Marshall NELSON v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT, Shreveport Police Department, Chief Jim Roberts, Officer Janet Dailey and Other Unnamed Officers.
    No. 2006-C-0453.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Nelson, Marshall; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 474,961; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,494-CA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Henry LACOUR and Trechell Boudray.
    No. 2006-KK-0470.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Boudray, Trechell; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 450-249; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0707.

Denied.


text:
    Vickie STEVENS, et al. v. Jason PATTON, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0471.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Stevens, Vickie et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2002-78317-E; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-01158.

Denied.


text:
    Martin and Vivian HUMPHREY v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, RECREATION & TOURISM.
    No. 2006-C-0472.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Humphrey, Martin et al.; Humphrey, Vivian; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2002-2013; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-873.

Denied.


text:
    Joseph P. RASPANTI v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2006-C-0476.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Raspanti, Joseph P.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 580-499; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-0623.

Denied.


text:
    Gloria MIZE, Individually and on Behalf of Her Deceased Mother, Mertise Woods v. PHC MINDEN, L.P. dba Minden Medical Center.
    No. 2006-CC-0479.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Mize, Gloria; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 63,700; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 41092-CW.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant for reasons assigned by BROWN, C. J.


text:
    David BROWN and Karen Brown v. Douglas ROMERO, Karen Leblanc, Nick Leblanc, et al.
    No. 2006-C-0480.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Brown, David et ¿1.; Brown, Karen; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2003-3315; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1016.

Denied.


text:
    Allen J. ROCHE v. JEFFERSON DAVIS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., et al.
    No. 2006-C-0484.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Roche, Allen J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson Davis,. 31st Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. C-732-04; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1009.

Denied.


text:
    James B. RACHAL, by and Through His Duly Authorized Agent, Alice Fae REGAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS.
    No. 2006-CC-0490.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Ollie Steele Burden Manor, Inc.;— Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 499,879; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 2592.

Denied.


text:
    Gary HENDERSON, et al. v. HOMER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al.
    No. 2006-C-0491.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Henderson, Jerry; Henderson, Donny; Henderson, Gary et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 35,782; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,585-CA.

Denied.


text:
    William L. REED v. The PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0492.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Reed, William L.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 2004-0132; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-01253.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph GRECO, Jr.
    No. 2006-KK-0495.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Greco, Joseph Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 88-3383-F; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-1417.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    Mark DISHON; d/b/a Curb Creations & Construction v. Ross M. PONTHIE, et al.
    No. 2006-C-0599.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re RMP Rentals LLC; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 211,897; to the Court of Appeal, Third 'Circuit, No. 05-659.

Denied.


text:
    Marshall NELSON v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT, Shreveport Police Department, Chief Jim Roberts, Officer Janet Dailey and Other Unnamed Officers.
    No. 2006-C-0600.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Dailey, Janice Officer; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 474,961; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,494-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Donovan MONCEAUX v. R & R CONSTRUCTION, INC.
    No. 2006-C-0636.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2006.
   In re Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Corp.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 3, No. 03-07918; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-533.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.