author: McCALEB, Justice.

text:
    232 La. 87
    GREATER BATON ROUGE PORT COMMISSION v. Helen MORLEY.
    No. 42960.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 25, 1957.

      W. P. Strangward, Cleveland, Ohio, Barbier, MacFarland & Tolleson, Detroit, Mich., Joseph A. Loret, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellants.
    Hynes, Mathews & Lane, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.
   McCALEB, Justice.

This suit was instituted for the purpose of expropriating a servitude or right of way across 10 separate contiguous tracts of land situated in West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana in connection with the proposed construction of the Port Allen-Indian Village link of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Three of the tracts are owned in indivisión by defendants, Helen Morley and Harry L. Laws & Co., Inc., four of the tracts are owned in indivisión by defendants, Helen Morley and Southern Land Products Co., Inc. and the remaining three tracts are owned in indivisión by defendants, Plelen Morley and Charles G. McDonald, and Mrs. Sue W. Whitehead.

The suit, as originally instituted, named Helen Morley as the sole defendant. To plaintiff’s original petition Miss Morley filed exceptions of no right or cause of action and also an exception of non-joinder, the latter predicated upon plaintiff’s failure to make Harry L. Laws & Co., Inc., Southern Land Products Co., Charles G. McDonald and Mrs. Sue W. Whitehead parties defendant to the suit. Miss Morley also filed an answer and a reconventional demand.

Prior to a trial on any of the exceptions, plaintiff filed a supplemental and amending petition by which it made Southern Land Products Co. and Charles G. McDonald parties to the suit.

To this supplemental petition, each defendant filed various dilatory and peremptory exceptions in addition to answering on the merits. Included among these exceptions were exceptions of improper cumulation of actions and misjoinder of parties defendant which were interposed by defendants Southern Land Products Co. and Charles G. McDonald. The basis of these exceptions is that Southern Land Products Co. and Charles G. McDonald have no interest in the property owned jointly by Helen Morley and Harry L. Laws & Co., Inc.; that Southern Land Products Co. has no interest in the property owned by Helen Morley and Charles G. McDonald and that Charles G. McDonald has no inter-cst in the property owned jointly by Helen Morley and Southern Land Products Co. Exceptors argue that one should not be made to defend an action in which he has no interest and no connection.

After a trial the district court rendered judgment overruling all the exceptions filed by defendants and granting plaintiff the servitudes sought to be expropriated upon payment to Helen Morley of $8,406, upon payment to Southern Land Products .Co. of $5,385.38 and upon payment to Charles G. McDonald of $866.81. The judgment further reserved to defendants certain rights to the merchantable timber on the tracts involved. All defendants have appealed from this judgment.

We address our immediate attention to defendants’ contention that the district court erred in overruling the exceptions of improper cumulation of actions and mis-joinder of parties defendant.

It is the well-settled jurisprudence of this state, as enunciated in Reardon v. Dickinson, 156 La. 556, 100 So. 715, 716, that:

“The test to be applied in considering a plea of misjoinder is whether the parties, plaintiffs or defendants, have a common interest in the subject-matter of the suit.”

See Mavor v. Armant, 14 La.Ann. 181; Gill v. City of Lake Charles, 119 La. 17, 43 So. 897; Davidson v. Fletcher, 126 La. 535, 52 So. 761; Strong v. Robbins, 137 La. 680, 69 So. 93; McGee v. Collins, 156 La. 291, 100 So. 430, 34 A.L.R. 336 and Mundy v. Gentilly Oaks, 228 La. 509, 82 So.2d 849.

Applying this rule to the situation in the instant case, it is manifest that there has been an improper cumulation of actions and misjoinder of parties defendant as to defendants Charles G. McDonald and Southern Land Products Company. Charles G. McDonald, as owner in indivisión of three of the tracts with Helen Morley and Mrs. Sue W. Whitehead, has no interest whatever in the three tracts owned in in-división by Miss Morley and Harry L. Laws & Co., Inc., nor in the four tracts owned in indivisión by Miss Morley and Southern Land Products Co., Inc. and can in nowise be affected by the judgments rendered as to those tracts. And the same thing is true as to Southern Land Products Co., Inc., anent the tracts sought to be expropriated in which it has no interest. The fact that Miss Morley is the owner of an undivided interest in all of the ten tracts over which plaintiff seeks to expropriate a right of way does not alter the result insofar as concerns the improper cumulation of actions and misjoinder of parties who do not have a common interest in all of the property sought to be taken, for those parties, who are necessary and indispensable parties as to each tract in which they have an interest, cannot be forced to litigate in the same suit with respect to properties in which they do not have an interest.

In attempting to uphold the decision of the trial judge, counsel for plaintiff rely in the main on Gill v. City of Lake Charles, supra, wherein this Court approved the joinder, as plaintiffs, of eight separate owners of property abutting Lake Charles in a single action in which they attacked the validity of a city ordinance granting a railway company a franchise to operate along the lake front. But that opinion does not support the ruling in this case for, there, each and every plaintiff was similarly affected and was requesting identical relief. Thus, the Court correctly found that there was a common interest between all parties. Here, as we have above pointed out, there is no community of interest as to the two objecting defendants and, therefore, plaintiff’s suit must be dismissed as to them. See Davidson v. Frost-Johnson Lumber Co., 126 La. 542, 52 So. 759; McGee v. Collins, supra, and Delesdernier Estate v. Zettwoch, La.App., 175 So. 137. Compare Dubuisson v. Long, 175 La. 564, 143 So. 494.

And, since we also find that plaintiff has improperly cumulated the demand for expropriation of a right of way over the four tracts owned in indivisión by Miss Morley and Southern Land Products Co., Inc., with its demand for expropriation of a right of way over the three tracts owned in indivisión by Miss Morley, Charles G. McDonald and Mrs. Sue W. Whitehead and that each of these demands has been improperly joined with the demand for the expropriation of a right of way over the three tracts owned in indivisión by Miss Morley and Harry L. Laws & Co., Inc., its suit must be dismissed as to the two first named demands.

Conversely, plaintiff’s action in which it seeks to expropriate a servitude over the three tracts owned in indivisión by Helen Morley and Harry L. Laws & Co., Inc., is not susceptible to exceptions of mis-joinder and improper cumulation of actions and, indeed, Miss Morley filed no such exceptions. Hence, as that demand stands, we pass on to an examination of the various defenses interposed by Miss Morley.

The exception of non-joinder filed by Miss Morley is predicated on the theory that, since plaintiff is seeking to expropriate only a servitude over the three tracts owned by her in indivisión with Harry L. Laws & Co., the latter is a necessary party defendant to the proceeding forasmuch as a servitude is indivisible by nature and cannot be graned as to an undivided part of the land. In this connection, counsel further declare that the purported deed by which plaintiff acquired a servitude over the three tracts from the Laws corporation is null and void since it is legally impossible to acquire a servitude from persons owning only an undivided interest in property.

There is no merit in this position. Article 738 of the Civil Code provides that:

“The coproprietor of an undivided estate can not impose a servitude thereon, without the consent of his copro-prietor.
“The contract of servitude, however, is not null; its execution is suspended until the consent of the co-proprietor is gjyen.”

Thus it is seen that the agreement whereby plaintiff acquired a servitude from the Laws corporation is not null but that its execution is merely suspended until such time as Miss Morley’s consent is obtained, either voluntarily or judicially. Compare Gulf Refining Co. v. Carroll, 145 La. 299, 82 So. 277; Amerada Petroleum Corporation v. Reese, 195 La. 359, 196 So. 558 and Sun Oil Co. v. State Mineral Board, La., 90 So.2d 583 (all involving leases of undivided interests).

Counsel for Miss Morley also filed an exception of no right of action, the theory being that, .-since the purpose for which the expropriations are sought is a project of the United States government, plaintiff has no interest in the suit.

This contention is groundless. Plaintiff, an Executive Department of the State of Louisiana with all rights and powers of expropriation provided for by the Constitution and laws of this state, see Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission v. Watson, 224 La. 136, 68 So.2d 901, was specifically designated by the Governor of Louisiana on December 6, 1954, as the proper body to secure all rights of way and spoil disposal easements required by the United States for the initial construction and subsequent maintenance of the project involved in this suit. Indeed, the project is authorized on the very condition that local interests will “(a) Furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and spoil disposal areas that may be required for initial construction and subsequent maintenance as and when required; * * Senate Document 242, 79th Congress, 2d Session. Thus, it is patent that plaintiff was the proper party to bring the instant proceeding.

Counsel also contend that plaintiff’s petition does not disclose a cause of action since it is not alleged that the expropriations sought are for a public purpose.

The reason given in disposing of the exception of no right of action is a sufficient answer to this contention. Furthermore, it is clear that plaintiff is acting pursuant to and in conformity with Section 12 of Article 4 of the Louisiana Constitution, which reads, in part, as follows:

“* * * the State, or any agency or political corporation or subdivision thereof may, through the authorized representatives thereof, donate by fee simple title, or otherwise convey, to the United States any lands, property, movable and immovable, rights of way, easements or other servitudes, or any of them, which they now own, or may hereafter acquire by purchase, donation, expropriation or otherwise, for the following public purposes; use, in connection with the improvement and maintenance of the navigation of natural waterways, the construction and improvement and maintenance of artificial navigable waterways * * * authorized by any Act or Acts of Congress of the United States or Federal Statutes, or otherwise, * *

On the merits of the case the trial judge, after considering the testimony and various sales and compromise agreements reached as to property situated in close proximity to the tracts in question, awarded Miss Morley $8,406 for the taking as to all ten tracts. This judgment was predicated upon a market value of $22.50 per acre for the servitude taken and did not include any allowance for merchantable timber standing on the land to be used for the right of way. However, the judge reserved to Miss Morley the right to remove said timber prior to the commencement of construction work of the canal and, further, permitted her to make claim for the value of any timber which is not removed prior to construction and which is destroyed because of said construction.

In complaining of the quantum of damages, counsel for defendant contend that the judge erred in disregarding several deeds offered in evidence as well as the testimony of certain witnesses, all of which, according to counsel, reveal that the interests expropriated by plaintiff are worth far in excess of $22.50 per acre and they urge that the award be increased from $8,406 to $71,280. Counsel further assert that the judgment should have included damages for the merchantable timber on the tracts in question rather than relegating defendant to actions for damages in the future in the event that she be unable to salvage said timber.

We have no doubt that the trial judge was in error in making the award without taking into account the value of the standing timber. As pointed out by counsel, the judgment as it stands places the burden on defendant of removing the timber and of bringing further actions for the value of such timber as is destroyed pursuant to the project and which could not have been removed by defendant with due diligence. In other words, unless defendant is able to remove the timber prior to the commencement of construction, which, for any number of reasons, she may be unable to do, plaintiff or its assignees may destroy all of said timber, leaving defendant only a claim for its value. Obviously, Miss Morley is not legally required to do anything; she is entitled to receive adequate compensation for the right of way in advance of the taking. Section 2 of Article 1 of the Louisiana Constitution. To be just, the compensation must include the value of the timber damaged or destroyed as well as the value of the land.

Since the trial judge failed to pass on the question of the value of the timber, it is necessary to remand the case so that a determination can be made of the value of the property rights sought to be expropriated, including the merchantable timber. New evidence may be adduced to aid in this matter.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is reversed; the exceptions of improper cumulation of actions and of misjoinder of parties defendant are sustained and plaintiff’s suit is dismissed as to defendants Charles G. McDonald and Southern Land Products Co., Inc. and as to the demands affecting the properties owned in indivisión by Helen Morley, Charles G. McDonald and Mrs. Sue W. Whitehead and the properties owned in indivisión by Helen Morley and Southern Land Products Co., Inc. Insofar as plaintiff’s demand for expropriation of a servitude over the tracts owned in indivisión by Helen Morley and Harry L. Laws & Co., Inc., is concerned, the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law and consistent with the views herein expressed. The costs incurred by defendants Charles G. McDonald and Southern Products Co., Inc., are to be paid by plaintiff; taxation of all other costs is to await final determination of the cause.

SIMON, J., absent.

      . Pending tliis appeal Southern Land Products Co., Inc., was substituted as party-defendant for Southern Land Products Co.

      . Harry L. Laws & Co., Inc. and Mrs. Sue W. Whitehead were not made parties defendant since plaintiff alleges that their respective interests in the tracts in question necessary to plaintiff were acquired by it by means of amicable agreements negotiated prior to the filing of this suit.

      . The same may be said of Reardon v. Dickinson, 166 La. 556, 100 So. 715 and Lykes Bros. Ripley S.S. Co. v. Wiegand Marionneaux L. Co., 185 La. 1085, 171 So. 453.

      . This provision of the judgment reads as follows:
      “It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants hei’ein shall retain ownership, insofar as their said respective interests are concerned, of all of the merchantable timber on the tracts hereinabove described and are hereby reserved the right, to the extent of their said respective interest, until December 1, 1956, or until such time thereafter as plaintiff or its assigns shall commence physically to exercise the rights herein expropriated and adjudicated, to enter upon said tracts and cut and remove therefrom the merchantable timber, there being hereby further reserved to defendants the right thereafter to make such claims as they may have for loss of merchantable timber which they shall have been unable to cut and remove from said tracts through the exercise of due diligence prior to December 1, 1956, or prior to the subsequent exercise by plaintiff or its assigns of the rights herein expropriated and adjudicated.”

      . These figures are based on Miss Morley’s undivided one-half interest in all ten tracts.

      . In this connection, we note that counsel for defendant have filed a motion to remand so that the lower court might consider a sale of allegedly comparable servitudes from Southern Land Products Co. to the State of Louisiana, effectuated subsequent to the filing of this proceeding.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: SIMON, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    232 La. 102
    Walter J. JONES v. Ocie Brackin JONES.
    No. 42039.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 25, 1957.

      Wilson, Abramson & Maroun, Shreveport, for appellant-defendant in reconvention.
    Love & Rigby, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee.
   SIMON, Justice.

Walter J. Jones instituted this suit against his wife, Ocie (Ossie) Brackin Jones, for an-absolute divorce on the statutory ground of having lived separate and apart continuously for a period in excess of two-years.

Answering, the defendant admitted the alleged separation, and, alleging that she-was in necessitous circumstances, reconvened for alimony, to be recognized the owner of and placed in possession of one-half of the property belonging to the community of acquets and gains, and for attorney’s fees in the sum of $150 to be cast, against the community mass.

After trial on the merits judgment was-¡rendered granting to plaintiff an absolute-divorce, awarding defendant alimony in the-sum of $10 per week, recognizing her to be the owner of and sending and putting her into possession of one-half of the community property, and awarding her attorney’s fee in the sum of $150 as prayed for.

' Plaintiff perfected a suspensive appeal from said judgment, however, the only issue-before this court as conceded by appellant in his brief is the one which relates to the-alimony awarded. Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously allowed alimony in that the defendant was not in necessitous-circumstances.

The issue, therefore, becomes one-which is more or less factual. The conclusion of fact reached by the trial court and its-judgment thereon will not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous. This rule has-been too well established in our jurisprudence to warrant citation.

LSA-Civil Code, Article 160, which authorizes an allowance to a wife oil divorce,, provides in part:

“ * * * provided, however, that in-cases where, under the laws of this-State a divorce is granted solely on the ground that the married persons have been living separate and apart for a ■ certain specified period of time, and the husband has obtained a divorce up■on the ground of such living separate and apart, and the wife has not been at fault, then the Court may allow the wife in its discretion, out of the prop■erty and earnings of her husband, alimony which shall not exceed one-third •of his income.
“This alimony shall be revocable in case it should become unnecessary, and in case the wife should contract a second marriage.”

The alimony provided in Article 160 is, under our jurisprudence, in the nature of a pension accorded by law to the wife. This alimony or pension is nothing more than a pure gratuity which the court may allow and fix at its discretion at an amount not to exceed more than one-third ■of the husband’s income, and is revocable when it becomes unnecessary. Player v. Player, 162 La. 229, 110 So. 332; Fortier v. Gelpi, 195 La. 449, 197 So. 138; Scott v. Scott, 197 La. 726, 2 So.2d 193; Slagle v. Slagle, 205 La. 694, 17 So.2d 923; Brown v. Harris, 225 La. 320, 72 So.2d 746.

An examination of the record reveals that ■the parties hereto are members of the col- ■ ored race, were married during May, 1934 and voluntarily separated during the month •of August, 1951. This suit was filed on May 5, 1954. During the period of separation the plaintiff did not advance any sum or sums of money for the maintenance and support •of the defendant, notwithstanding the fact that he was employed as the pastor of a local church at a salary of $50 per week; that after the separation he continued to occupy the matrimonial residence and to use the ■contents therein free of rental obligation, whereas the defendant was compelled to occupy another residence at a monthly rental •of $42.

The record discloses that during the separation and at the time of the trial the defendant was employed in a private home as a domestic worker at $3 a day. She received no other income from any other source. Her married daughter lived with her and contributed to the household expenses. Their grocery bill amounted to about $20 a week; their light bill, about $4 a month; their water and gas bill, about $1.13 and $1.50 per month, respectively. In addition, defendant was required to have medical treatments at an expenditure of about $7 or $8 a treatment, though there is nothing in the record to show how often she incurred this expense.

In his brief counsel for defendant argues the absence of fault in the defendant wife for the basis of her claim to alimony under Article 160 of LSA-Civil Code, which we need not inquire into for the reason that the plaintiff husband does not raise that issue but argues solely the question of the needs of the defendant. He contends that as long as the defendant wife has other property or means available .and so long as she has an income, from whatever source, her claim for alimony is without legal sanction. In support of this contention he cites the case of Brown v. Harris, 225 La. 320, 72 So.2d 746, 747.

Our findings and reasoning in the Brown case are not applicable in the instant one. In that case the husband filed a rule to show cause why a previous judgment of the court awarding the wife alimony of $55 a month should not be set aside and why he should not be relieved from further payments of alimony. By stipulation of the parties it was shown that the financial status of the wife had not changed since the alimony had been fixed in said judgment except for the amount received by her in the partition of the community, $7,315.01. The wife was gainfully employed, earning $150 per month; she had on deposit in a building and loan association $6,000, which earned a dividend at 3% per annum, or $16.50 per month. In considering the merits of the rule this court was of the opinion that under the facts and circumstances of that case the wife had sufficient means for her maintenance and rendered judgment making the rule absolute.

In Brown v. Harris, supra, we find the following observation:

“In Fortier v. Gelpi, supra (195 La. 449, 197 So. [138] 140), this court said:
“ ‘ * * * The test by which the court must be guided in such cases in fixing the amount of the alimony or pension is not what it takes to support the divorced wife in the manner in which she has been accustomed to live, but what will provide her with ‘sufficient means for her maintenance.’ In arriving at this amount, necessarily the husband’s ability to pay must be taken into consideration. * * * ’ See also Matheny v. Matheny, 205 La. 869, 18 So.2d 324; Smith v. Smith, 217 La. 646, 47 So.2d 32; Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La. 221, 65 So.2d 321.
“In Smith v. Smith, supra, this court had occasion to consider themeaning of the phrase ‘sufficient means for her maintenance’ in Article 160, and concluded that ‘maintenance’ as this word is used in the article includes primarily food, shelter, and clothing. The amount necessary for maintenance is to be determined by the facts and circumstances of each particular case, within the sound discretion of the trial judge, but, inasmuch .as thei;e is no longer an obligation under Article 120 for the husband to support the wife and the alimony is nothing more than a pension or gratuity, the trial judge in fixing the amount is not bound by the manner in which the wife has been accustomed to live.”

In the instant case the husband was employed at a rate of $50 a week. The wife was employed at the rate of $15 a week. During the separation the plaintiff failed to contribute anything to the maintenance and needs of his wife. During that period he enjoyed the benefits of the community property and effects existing between them, including the use of the community automobile, whereas the wife was compelled to pay rent for separate living quarters and to maintain herself out of her limited income as stated.

The record further reveals that during the period of the separation the husband encumbered the community immovable property, consisting of a lot and a residence located thereon and having an approximate value of $2,700, by granting a mortgage thereon in the sum of $1,800. The loan thus obtained was used to construct a garage on the said property for the community automobile. This encumbrance was effected without the knowledge of the defendant wife.

The record convinces us that the district judge, in finding the defendant to be entitled to alimony from the plaintiff husband in the sum of $10 per week, was clearly justified.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed. All costs to be paid by plaintiff-appellant.

      . LSA-R.S. 9:801.


author: HAMLIN, Justice ad hoc.

text:
    232 La. 111

    STATE of Louisiana v. Isaac PEART.
    No. 43094.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 25, 1957.

      Lyall G. Shiell, Jr., Henry M. Elkins, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
    Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leon D. Hubert, Jr., Dist. Atty., Edward M. Baldwin, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for appellee.
   HAMLIN, Justice ad hoc.

The defendant appeals from his conviction of the crime of aggravated rape, LSA-R.S. 14:42 and his sentence of death by electrocution.

The two Bills of Exceptions reserved during the trial are presented for our consideration.

Bill of Exceptions No. One was taken to the ruling of the trial court in allowing two oral confessions and a written confession to be introduced in evidence.

Defendant contends that the purported confessions were elicited through duress and violence, and his counsel argues—

“ * * * that where there is the slightest doubt of the validity of any confession, that doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant, particularly in a capital punishment case. It is further submitted that there exists such a doubt in this instance and the admission of confessions was in error.”

Examination of the testimony attached to the bill discloses that the defendant was arrested at approximately 11:30 p. m. on July 16, 1955, shortly after the commission of the offense charged. He was taken to the precinct station by the two arresting officers and locked in a cell. At approximately 1:15 a. m., July 17, 1955, he was taken to the coroner’s office for examination and then returned to the police station. Commencing at 3:00 a. m., the defendant was questioned, and between that time and 4:15 a. m., he gave two oral confessions. Defendant’s confession was then reduced to writing from statements given by him. The preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that the defendant read the confession and then signed it. The father of the victim’s fiancee testified that the confession was read aloud to the defendant before he signed it. The entire procedure was concluded at approximately 5:00 a. m., on July 17, 1955.

The testimony of Officers Paul Speran-deo, Jacob Bar ruso, A. Polito, Edward O’Donnell, Detectives Orin Mills and Rene Latterade, and Sergeants Sidney Cellos and Hubert Badeaux, is to the effect that no violence or duress was exercised on the defendant from the time of his arrest until the conclusion of his confessions, that no inducements were made to him, that he was not threatened, and that his confessions were given voluntarily. The testimony of Doorman Peter Ory is to the same effect. Two friends of the defendant, who were brought in for questioning and were present at the time the written confession was taken, testified that there was no intimidation of the defendant. The victim’s fiancee and his father were present at the time the written confession was taken, and their testimony, to the effect that the confession was given voluntarily and signed without hesitation, is clear and concise. Peter C. Cazolot, Sr., father of the victim’s fiancee, signed the document at the end thereof.

The defendant’s mother testified that she saw him in jail on Sunday afternoon, July 17, 1955; that his eyes were black, and that he had a swollen place on his forehead and two marks on his wrists. She said she saw him on Sunday morning, July 17, 1955, between 12:30 and 1:00 a. m., and that he was not in such a condition.

The defendant testified that Sergeants Badeaux and O’Donnell beat him while he was in the police car, that he was beaten while he was in the cell at the police station, that his confessions were not given voluntarily, and that some of the witnesses who stated they were present when the confession was signed were not present.

It is the basic law of this State that—

“Before what purposes to be a confession can be introduced in evidence, it must be affirmatively shown that it was free and voluntary, and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises.” LSA-R.S. 15:451.

The evidence attached to Bill of’ Exceptions No. One clearly preponderates that the defendant’s confession was given-voluntarily and that he read and signed it without threats, inducements, promises, or-intimidation.

The question of the admissibility of" the confessions addressed itself to the trial judge, and his ruling will not be disturbed' unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. State v. Cook, 215 La. 163, 39 So.2d 898; State v. Palmer, 227 La. 691, 80 So.2d 374. We find no error-in the ruling of the trial judge in permit— ting the confessions to be introduced in evidence, and the bill is, therefore, without merit.

Bill of Exceptions No. Two was re-^ served when the trial judge refused to-grant the defendant a new trial.

Counsel’s motion alleged that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence.

Since Bill of Exceptions No. Two presents nothing new for our consideration,. it is without merit. State of Louisiana v. Mills, 229 La. 758, 86 So.2d 895; State v. Coffil, 222 La. 487, 62 So.2d 651.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

HAWTHORNE, J., absent.


text:
    Lynette CALDWELL and Larry Caldwell v. Kevin Paul RICHARDSON and Sophia Neihaus Richardson.
    No. 2006-C-0963.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2006.
   In re Richardson, Sophia Neihaus; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2005-000579; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CU 1688.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Thaddeus M. BATISTE.
    No. 2006-KH-0890.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 24, 2006.
   In re Batiste, Thaddeus M.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 455249.

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. Perry FOSTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2474.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 24, 2006.
   In re Foster, Perry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 94 CR2 56964; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, -No. 2005KW 1133.

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.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Travis Dwayne WARE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2536.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 24, 2006.
   In re Ware, Travis Dwayne; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 02-161174; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0914.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Antonio GALLAGHER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2543.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 24, 2006.
   In re Gallagher, Antonio; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 98-7142; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-659.

Denied. Time-barred, not cognizable, and repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; Denied. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    Lauren MUNSCH, Sr. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2006-C-0590.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2006.
   In re Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, Nos. 2002-10595, 2002-11541; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0147.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Leodrey MORRISON v. Jacob MARZE, USAA Insurance Co., John R. Fentem, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Penske Truck Leasing Corporation, Fed Ex Ground Packaging System, Inc., ABC Insurance Co., and 123 Insurance Co.
    No. 2006-CC-1074.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2006.
   In re Morrison, Leodrey; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 31,791; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 0227.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Walter WELLS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1980.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Wells, Walter; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 359652, 365013; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KW 0232.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. The district court is ordered to resentence relator to the five-year sentence originally pronounced. See generally State v. Louis, 94-0761, pp. 10-14 (La.ll/3Q/94), 645 So.2d 1144, 1149-51; see also R.S. 46:1844(S). In all other respects, the application is denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    ASTRO TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. D.H. GRIFFIN OF TEXAS, INC., LVI Environmental Services, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America.
    No. 2006-CC-0325.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re LVI Environmental Services, Inc.; LVI Environmental Services of New Orleans Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 518-927; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 2418.

Granted. The case is remanded to the court of appeal to make a determination, after appropriate briefing from the parties, as to whether the arbitration agreement falls within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sections 1-16 and whether the case is controlled by Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006).


text:
    Narinder GUPTA, MD v. SURGICAL PARTNERS OF AMERICA, INC., et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0507.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Gupta, Narinder MD; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, No. 96-6338; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1310.

Granted. The case is remanded to the court of appeal to make a determination, after appropriate briefing from the parties, as to whether the arbitration agreement falls within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sections 1-16 and whether the case is controlled by Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006).


text:
    Sylvester PERKINS v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Sharon Brunch and John Brunch.
    No. 2006-CC-0627.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Allstate Insurance Company et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 512,753; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 2676.

Grant and remand to the court of appeal for briefing, argument and opinion.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eric TREADAWAY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1954.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Treadaway, Eric; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 96-5435; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 2005-KH-0616.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. Because relator’s 1995 conviction in the 34th Judicial District for felony theft in violation of La.R.S. 14:67 has been overturned, relator’s present adjudication and sentence as an habitual offender in part on the basis of that prior conviction has become illegal. State v. Martin, 427 So.2d 1182, 1186 (La.1983); cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 882. Relator’s current habitual offender adjudication and sentence are therefore vacated and his case is remanded to the district court for resentencing. In all other respects the application is denied.


text:
    In re Koby D. BOYETT.
    No. 2006-OB-0887.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Boyett, Koby D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Waiver of Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination Pursuant to Rule XVII, § 3.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    Sonya J. WILLIAMSON v. Jayson M. BERGER, Ph.D., M.D., et al.
    No. 2006-C-0657.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Williamson, Sonya J.;- — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 983583; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-83.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See S.Ct. Rule X, section 5(a).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Theodore SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2178.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Smith, Theodore; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 220022; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0801.

Application dismissed at relator’s request.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Adonis GAYNOR.
    No. 2005-KH-0554.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Gaynor, Adonis; — Defendant; Applying for Motion to Enforce this Court’s Order of March 18, 2005; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 448-859.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Farrell PORCHE.
    No. 2006-KK-0312.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 04-3227; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-K-982.

Granted.


text:
    William MARKS v. NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
    No. 2006-C-0575.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re New Orleans Police Department; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review City Civil Service Commission Orleans, No. 6730; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-CA-0307.

Granted.


text:
    HOLLY & SMITH ARCHITECTS, INC. v. ST. HELENA CONGREGATE FACILITY, INC. and St. Helena Parish Hospital.
    No. 2006-C-0582.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re St. Helena Congregate Facility Inc. et ah; St. Helena Parish Hospital;— Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of St. Helena, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 18,694, 15,533; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2005 CA 175, 2005 CA 0176.

Granted.


text:
    Delton AUGUSTINE, Jr. v. Johnny E. GRIFFIN, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0427.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re — Plaintiff(S); Republic Vanguard Insurance Company applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated March 17, 2006; Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court, Div. A, No. 2004-6014; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-01515.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Arthur RHODES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-0631.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Rhodes, Arthur; — Defendant(S); Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated January 13, 2006; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 94-1357; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-15.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lee Dell GRIFFIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-0632.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Griffin, Lee Dell; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated January 13, 2006, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. G, No. 243698; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit No. 04-01328.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lavelle MYERS (a.k.a. Lavelle Coleman) v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-0635.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Myers, Lavelle; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated January 13, 2006, Parish of Grant, 35th Judicial District Court, No. 01-348; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit No. 04-01662.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Todd LUCAS, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1130.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Lucas, Todd Sr.; — Plaintiff (s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts action dated February 3, 2006; Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 391058; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2004 KA1077.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gerald TAYLOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1301.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Gerald Taylor; Applying For Reconsideration of an Order of this Court dated February 10, 2006, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “I”, No. 282-920.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Robert WHITE, et al. v. PROGRESSIVE SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2005-OC-2202.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re White, Robert et al.; White, Wanda Lacey; Plaintiffs); Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated February 20, 2006, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2000-6253; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-469.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Andrew JOSEPH.
    No. 2005-KP-1488.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Joseph, Andrew; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 270-076.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jerome HAYDEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2169.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Hayden, Jerome; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 380-122; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0780.

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.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Phillip Albert JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2176.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Johnson, Phillip Albert; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 252,747; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). KH 05-00251, KH 04-01447.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Frankie BARKER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2177.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Barker, Frankie; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 218,978; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39624-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Arthur WITTENBERG v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2179.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Wittenberg, Arthur; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 419-770; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-KA-1140.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Bobby LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2180.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Lewis, Bobby; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 397-585; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-0830.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kenneth JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2181.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Johnson, Kenneth; — Plaintiff; Applying for ■ Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 356-746; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-1069.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Wardell D. ELLIOTT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2182.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Elliott, Wardell D.;- — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 03-1459; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-KA-0936.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David WILSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2183.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Wilson, David; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 114926; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005-KW-0329.

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. Samuel KELLY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2184.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Kelly, Samuel; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 98-4959; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-657.

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. Charleston L. CLARK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2192.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Clark, Charleston L.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 125-1994; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00077.

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. Dwight L. BELL, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2197.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Bell, Dwight L. Sr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 357-016; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0840.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Baron THOMPSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2198.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Thompson, Baron; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 4-02-266; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 2036.

Denied.'


text:
    STATE ex rel. Justin Q. TAYLOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2203.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re- Taylor, Justin Q.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 02-3671; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-KA-1389.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Byron Rozell NASH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2204.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Nash, Byron Rozell; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 45328; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40353-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles H. PARKER, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2205.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Parker, Charles H. Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 26,203; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40340-KH.

Denied. Untimely and repetitive. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Brian HUGHES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2216.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Hughes, Brian; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 90-1028; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-631.

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. Christopher WHITE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2222.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re White, Christopher; — -Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 374-791; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0951.

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 of Louisiana v. Dennis DAVIS.
    No. 2005-K-2312.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Davis, Dennis; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 05-KA-101; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KA-101.

Denied.


text:
    George BANTA and Glenda Banta, Individually, and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, Kayla Banta v. Rayvelle MCMURRY, Jr., University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors, and/or Louisiana Tech University and/or the State of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-C-2376.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors; Louisiana Tech University; State of Louisiana; — Defendant/s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 485,078; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 2274.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darrell GOFF.
    No. 2005-KP-2447.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Goff, Darrell; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 391-000; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-1305.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Majuangy EVANS.
    No. 2005-KP-2448.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Evans, Majuangy; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 01-1569; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-721.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jonathan MILLS.
    No. 2005-KP-2449.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Mills, Jonathan; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 366-626; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-1133.

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 of Louisiana v. Weldon GAINES.
    No. 2005-KP-2450.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Gaines, Weldon; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 02-3485; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-821.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Everett OFFRAY.
    No. 2005-KP-2451.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Offray, Everett; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 371-740; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-1135.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Walter DIGGS.
    No. 2005-KP-2452.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Diggs, Walter; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 99-152,241; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 EW 1279.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyrone FLETCHER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2499.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Fletcher, Tyrone; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 95-2442; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-710.

Denied. Untimely and repetitive. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joe SMITH, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2522.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Smith, Joe Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 47,724, 47,725; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40355-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.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eric P. HAMILTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2529.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Hamilton, Eric P.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 335541; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0857.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State ex rel. Hall v. State, 99—0326 (La.9/24/99), 871 So.2d 1071.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jerome WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2530.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Williams, Jerome; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 303-439; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No.

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. Darryl HEDGE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2532.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Hedge, Darryl; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 97-1106; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00262.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Bryan K. DEMOUCHET v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2534.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Demouchet, Bryan K.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 95CR202; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00537.

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. Joseph E. HOWARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2535.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Howard, Joseph E.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 16,126; 16,698; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 1027.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Craig STEVENS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2542.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Stevens, Craig; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 1352-91, 3652-91; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00045.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas H. TOUPS.
    No. 2005-K-2559.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Toups, Thomas H.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 04-1925; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KA-279.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Roosevelt S. GARNER.
    No. 2005-K-2567.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Garner, Roosevelt S.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 215,140; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39,731-KA.

Denied.


text:
    David AUTHEMENT and Rachel Authement, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, David Authement, II and Kaitaline Authement v. Joseph TOUPS, Reco Crane, L.L.C., and Sentry Select Insurance Company a/k/a John Deere Insurance Company.
    No. 2005-C-2588.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Authement, David et al.; Authement, Rachel; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 132234; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 2011.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael J. BRISBON.
    No. 2005-KO-2589.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Brisbon, Michael J.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 449-321; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-KA-0122.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Juan VERRETTE.
    No. 2005-KO-2590.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Verrette, Juan; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 387719; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 2229.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy TURNER.
    No. 2005-KO-2591.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Turner, Timothy; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 03-0564; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KA-75.

Denied.


text:
    Cynthia Wegmann TRAMONTIN v. Gregory William TRAMONTIN.
    No. 2006-C-0155.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Tramontin, Cynthia Wegmann;— Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 436,113; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 2286.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    Randy BEACH and Susan Beach v. POINTE COUPEE ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION and XYZ Insurance Company Donald McGehee and Stephanie McGehee v. Pointe Coupee Electric Membership Corporation and XYZ Insurance Company S. Paul Didier and Charlotte M. Didier v. Pointe Coupee Electric Membership Corporation and Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange.
    No. 2006-C-0165.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Pointe Coupee Electric Membership Corporation, et al.; Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 35,945, 35,946, 36,141; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2004 CA 2255, 2004 CA 2256, 2004 CA 2257.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Raymond T. POUSSON v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE.
    No. 2006-C-0228.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Pousson, Raymond T.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District #3, No. 03-09231; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-460.

Denied.


text:
    James and Beverly MITTER v. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH and Arnold J. Labat, President, St. John the Baptist Parish.
    No. 2006-C-0254.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re St. John The Baptist Parish et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 41399, 41399; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-375.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Odessa GALMICHE and Huey Galmiche v. The STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, Mitchell Buras and Arthur Munchie Odessa Galmiche and Huey Galmiche v. Plaquemines Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 d/b/a Plaquemines Parish Comprehensive Care Center and Nurse Bonnie Rodi a/k/a Bonnie Sue Lobrano.
    No. 2006-C-0285.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Plaquemines Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 d/b/a} — -Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 44,189, 46-669; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2005-CA-0394, 2005-CA-395.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    James D. NAILS, et al. v. Nickolos D. HUMPHRIES and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
    No. 2006-C-0361.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re USAgencies Casualty Insurance Company; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 20025283; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-368.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    James WATTIGNY v. Louise A. Cousin WATTIGNY.
    No. 2006-CC-0422.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Wattigny, James; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 1995-3026 M-3; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-01610.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gregory J. PICARD.
    No. 2006-KK-0423.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2004TR103944; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 05-01365.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Ginger BAILEY, et al. v. Dr. Gregory KHOURY, et al.
    No. 2006-OC-0428.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Bailey, Ginger et al.;- — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 99-4242; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-C-0199.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF J.C. Wilmer RHODES, Sr.
    No. 2006-C-0440.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Harrison, Judy; — Other; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 474,996-B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,469-CA.

Denied.


text:
    GULF STATES HEALTH SERVICES, INC. v. Mark HARRIS, Precision Billing Systems, LLC; Professional Staffing Associates, LLC; Maxim Management Group, LLC; Maxim Consulting Group, Inc.; Southern Accounting Service, LLC; and Richard A. Kellar.
    No. 2006-CC-0458.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Kellar, Richard A.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 532,-936; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 2589.

Denied.


text:
    Daren COUTEE, et al. v. The MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al.
    No. 2006-C-0514.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Delcomyn, Ray K.; Butler, William R.; Richmond, George; Coutee, Daren; Callahan, Lyndel; Williams, Oscar E.; Chevalier, James W.; Beckham, Edwin; Ferrier, J.W.; Urena, Walter; Dunn, Gary D.; Hussey, Jerry D.; Johnson, Charels E. Sr.; Smith, Richard M.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 209,399; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-752.

Denied.


text:
    John David MOORE v. Estelle Martin MOORE.
    No. 2006-C-0574.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Moore, Estelle Martin; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 99-7266-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-628.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    The DOC’S CLINIC, APMC, Doctor Kent Hickey and Malcolm H. Sutter, III v. The STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS.
    No. 2006-C-0601.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Doe’s Clinic APMC et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 507,132; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0082.

Denied.


text:
    Shandrica STREET v. Melinda B. DELAGE, Theodore Delage Busby, Linda Delage Busby, Rivertown Properties, Inc. and Reynolds, Sumrow & Scruggs, Inc.
    No. 2006-C-0602.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Street, Shandricka; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 500,638; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0068.

Denied.


text:
    Jerry WESTMORELAND v. ALLIED HEALTHCARE, INC.
    No. 2006-C-0603.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Westmoreland, Jerry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, Pineville City Court, No. 03-0232; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-892.

Denied.


text:
    Louvenia DAVIS, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Margaret Allen, Deceased v. ST. FRANCISVILLE COUNTRY MANOR, LLC.
    No. 2006-C-0604.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re St. Francisville Country Manor LLC; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 18543-B; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0072.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    RAMSEY’S MANUFACTURING JEWELERS, INC. v. Stephen M. RAMSEY, Nanci Murphy, and Steve Ramsey’s Diamonds Direct, L.L.C.
    No. 2006-C-0607.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Ramsey’s Manufacturing Jewelers Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 598,046; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-307.

Denied.


text:
    Albert J. LAMBERT v. FALCON DRILLING COMPANY, INC., Falcon Services Company, Inc., Gulf Pride Marine Service, and Sonat Exploration Company.
    No. 2006-C-0611.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Falcon Drilling Co. Inc. et al.;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 116,942; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0622.

Denied.


text:
    Albert J. LAMBERT v. FALCON DRILLING COMPANY, INC., Falcon Services Company, Inc., Gulf Pride Marine Services, and Sonat Exploration Company.
    No. 2006-C-0613.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Falcon Drilling Co. Inc. et al;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 116,942; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0424.

Denied.


text:
    Huey P. GIBSON, Sr., et al. v. HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR, L.L.P., et al.
    No. 2006-C-0615.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Gibson, Huey P. Sr. et al.; Gibson, Donald G. Sr.; Wimberly, Billy Ray; Gibson, Harold; Gibson, Barry L. Sr.; Gibson, Lana Sue Flintroy; Gibson, Jackie; Gilbert, Vernesia M.; Williams, Donna; Wimberly, James Henry Sr.; Gibson, Charles E.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 2002-02414; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-2204.

Denied.


text:
    LAKE BISTINEAU PRESERVATION SOCIETY, INC., and H.F. Anderson v. James Marshall SEALES, II, Bennie James Fontenont, Jr., William Dwight Landreneau, Secretary of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries of the State of Louisiana, and the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries of the State of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-C-0620.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Lake Bistineau Preservation Society, Inc., et al.; Anderson, H.F.; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 117,349, 114, 784; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,583-CA.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Robert GUNTER.
    No. 2006-C-0621.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Belgard, Johnna Sue Haynes; Bel-gard, Glenn Edward et ux.; — Other(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 35,343; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05 01122-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Larry GRANT v. Dedrick Keith WASHINGTON Landris Taylor and Barbara Kaufman v. Larry Grant.
    No. 2006-C-0628.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Grant, Larry; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Family Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Nos. 149,667, 150,898,; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2005 CA 0287, 2005 CA 0288.

Denied.


text:
    Darren COX and Linda Cox v. Glenn DECOTEAU, Beverly Decoteau, Pelican Point Properties, LLC, Dorothy Baker, Carr Home Inspection Services, Inc., and Jack Carr.
    No. 2006-C-0635.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Decoteau, Glenn T. et al.; Deco-teau, Beverly Savoy; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 76,025; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0090.

Denied.


text:
    Patrick D. BREEDEN v. Ronald N. LYBRAND and/or Eloyease W. Lybrand and/or TCB, Inc.
    No. 2006-C-0647.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Lybrand, Eloyease W.; Lybrand, Ronald N. et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 1999-7234; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-1340.

Denied.


text:
    Lawrence MENARD and Patricia Menard v. Michael R. HOLLAND, M.D.
    No. 2006-C-0649.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Menard, Patricia; Menard, Lawrence et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. C-73-99; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 05-353.

Denied.


text:
    Leodrey MORRISON v. Jacob MARZE, USAA Insurance Co., John R. Fentem, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Penske Truck Leasing Corporation, Fed Ex Ground Packaging System, Inc., ABC Insurance Co., and 123 Insurance Co.
    No. 2006-CC-0652.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Morrison, Leodrey; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 31,791; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 0104.

Denied.


text:
    Margaret L. BONIN v. COURNOYER-BUICK-PONTIAC-GMAC, INC.
    No. 2006-C-0654.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Bonin, Margaret L.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 125910; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0171.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    GREENBURG FARMS, INC. v. Clyde LANDRY, Clyde Landry d/b/a Landry Welding and United National Insurance Company.
    No. 2006-CC-0661.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Century Surety Company; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 144,796; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 2331.

Denied.


text:
    Joanna BOZZARTH, Phyllis Garcia, Cynthia Berges, Stephanie Rosales, Mary Owen and Rachael Curtis v. STATE of Louisiana, LSU MEDICAL CENTER/CHABERT MEDICAL CENTER, Dr. Jonah Ezieme, Dr. Joe Johnson, Dr. Mary Eschete, Dr. Daoling Zhang, Dr. Macsino-Bacuta, Dr. Thomas Ferguson, Dr. Donald Degrance, Dr. Kathy Hebert, Dr. Kenneth Kellum, Dr. Phoung Vo, Dr. Ronald Marts, Dr. John King and Dr. David Sampognaro.
    No. 2006-CC-0662.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Louisiana State of et ah; Ezieme, Jonah Dr.; Johnson, Joe Dr.; LSU Medical Center; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 124974; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 2000.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Blake BOURGEOIS, Samuel Carcisse, Dathrone Chapman, Darrell Dunn, Herbert Francois, Lawrence Gaines, Cardell Haynes, Keith Hicks, Gerald Hilton, Reggie Holland, Robert Muse, Jr., Andrew North, Johnel Peters, Kevin Peterson, Joe Spriggs, Oscar Vicknair, Darryl West, Jr. and Mark Wheat v. Jeffrey WILEY, Sheriff.
    No. 2006-C-0663.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Francois, Herbert; Haynes, Car-dell; Dunn, Darrell; Hicks, Keith; Holland, Reggie; North, Andrew; Peterson, Kevin; Vicknair, Oscar; Wheat, Mark; Bourgeois, Blake et al.; Chapman, Da-throne; Hilton, Gerald; Muse, Robert Jr.; Peters, Johnel; Spriggs, Joe; West, Darryl Jr.; Carcisse, Samuel; Gaines, Lawrence; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Aseension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 65,932; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0138.

Denied.


text:
    Elgie WEATHERSPOON v. TONY’S SEAFOOD, LTD.
    No. 2006-OC-0664.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Weatherspoon, Elgie; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation Administration District 5, No. 03-05509; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 2257.

Denied.


text:
    IMPERIAL CHEMICALS LIMITED v. PKB SCANIA (USA), INC. and Inchcape Testing, Inc.
    No. 2006-C-0665.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Inchcape Testing, Inc.; PKB Sca-nia (USA), Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 52-461; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 2742.

Denied.


text:
    N-Y ASSOCIATES, INC. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the ORLEANS PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT N-Y Associates, Inc., v. Board of Commissioners of the Orleans Parish Levee District.
    No. 2006-C-0666.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Orleans Levee District Board of Commissioners; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 95-16885; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2004-CA-1598, 2004-CA-1996.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Spencer CROCKETT.
    No. 2006-KK-0670.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Crockett, Spencer; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 05-2059; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-K-47.

Denied.


text:
    Dorothy CLEMENT, et al. v. FOUR WINDS TRIBE-LOUISIANA, et al.
    No. 2006-C-0672.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Crow, Shirley; Alexander, Martha; Sweat, Del Lavon; Rodrigues, Barbara; Clement, Dorothy et al.; Sinor, Billy; Perkins, Cheryl; Bynog, Darrell; Reeves, Joyce Laird; Gohr, Becky; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 67,931; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-652.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Roy Lee WILLIAMS.
    No. 2006-KK-0676.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Williams, Roy Lee; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court Div. 0, Nos. 99,029, 99,030; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 41,110-KW, 41,109-KW.

Denied.


text:
    Richard TASTET and Sylvia Tastet, Individually and as Curators of Their Incompetent Son, Shawn M. Tastet v. Charlie M. MAY, Jr., Jones Bros. Enterprises, Incorporated, Eagle Industries of Louisiana, State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development, the Parish of Jefferson, and Clarendon National Insurance Company.
    No. 2006-C-0682.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Tastet, Richard et al.; Tastet, Sylvia; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 532-213; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-755.

Denied.


text:
    BRENNAN’S HOUSE OF PRINTING, INC. v. Anne E. BRENNAN, Sheila Brennan Dupepe, Marleen Brennan Oldenburg, Fonda M. Brennan Sarah Brennan, Amy Kernion, Daniel Brennan, Jr., Andrew Brennan and Robert Brennan v. Fonda Maria Brennan, Marleen Brennan Oldenburg and Sheila Brennan Dupepe.
    No. 2006-C-0689.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Brennan, Sarah; Brennan, Daniel Jr.; Brennan, Robert; Kernion, Amy; Brennan, Andrew; Brennan, Anne E. et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, Nos. 616-499, 616-585; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No(s). 05-CA-648, 05-CA-647.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    SUCCESSIONS OF Elise Joynes TANNER, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0703.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Martin, Joan; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2001-8387; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-C-0008.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.


text:
    Leo Kenneth SONNIER and Geneva Sonnier v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., et al.
    No. 2006-C-0704.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Doucet, Herb; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. C-36-04; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1006.

Denied.


text:
    Cecile PAYNE v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 2006-C-0718.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Orleans Parish School Board;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 8, No. 03-00669; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-CA-0682.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Altair R GABLE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0888.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Gable, Altair R.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 463291.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    James D. NAILS, et al. v. Nickolos D. HUMPHRIES and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
    No. 2006-C-0889.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Nails, James D. et al.; Nails, Vicki Dianne; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 20025283-J; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-00368-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Boyce D. BURTS, III, et al. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0893.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Burts, Jennifer; Burts, Boyce D. Ill et al.;- — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2003-3213; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-00014.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. F.Y. & R.D.Y.
    No. 2006-CJ-0932.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2004-JU-69; to the Court, of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-920.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Frank KEYS, Jr.
    No. 2006-KH-0986.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Keys, Frank Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. M, No. 458-270.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    Celia Jane CURETON v. James Howard CURETON.
    No. 2006-CC-1011.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Cureton, James Howard; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2001-3675; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-00394.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donald BRIGGS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1013.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2006.
   In re Briggs, Donald; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 19325.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.