author: KIMBALL, C.J. WEIMER, J.,

text:
    DEER ENTERPRISES, LLC, A Louisiana Liability Company v. PARISH COUNCIL OF WASHINGTON PARISH.
    No. 2010-CA-0671.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 19, 2011.

      George Wayne Kuhn, Ieyoub & Landry, LLC, Kathryn W. Landry, for Appellant.
    James D. Caldwell, Atty. General, Katherine Krupa Green, Asst. Atty. General, Richard W. Watts, Tallulah, LA, for Ap-pellee.
   KIMBALL, C.J.

| jThis case concerns a recent amendment to La. R.S. 26:583, which governs whether local-option elections for alcoholic-beverage sales remain effective after political subdivisions have been merged. In 2009, a dispute arose between Washington Parish and the owner of a retail store, plaintiff Deer Enterprises, LLC, after the store owner was denied a permit to sell alcoholic beverages. Ultimately, the trial court judge in the Twenty-Second Judicial District declared La. R.S. 26:583(C)(2) to be a local or special law in violation of La. Const. Art. Ill, § 12(A). The trial court also ruled La. R.S. 26:583(C)(2) violated plaintiffs right to equal protection under La. Const. Art. I, § 3. This is a direct appeal from a declaration of unconstitutionality, over which La. Const. Art. V, § 5(d) grants this Court jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we find § 583(C)(2) is neither a local nor a special law; we also find it does not impermissibly discriminate against plaintiff. We therefore find § 583(C) does not violate La. Const. Art. Ill, § 12(A) or Art. I, § 3.

FACTS

In March 1976, electors in Ward 3 of Washington Parish voted to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages in their ward pursuant to a local-option election. In 1997, Washington Parish adopted a home-rule charter, replacing its police-jury system with | ga parish council, the members of which were elected by newly created districts. Council District 6 comprises parts of Wards 3 and 8. Ward 8, in contrast to Ward 3, previously had voted to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages. Council District 6 has not held a local-option election since its creation.

Deer Enterprises operates a convenience store, “Nemo’s,” in a portion of Ward 3 that is contained in Council District 6. In 2009, Deer Enterprises applied to the Washington Parish Council for a permit to sell beverages of low-alcoholic content for off-premises consumption. In a letter dated August 31, 2009, the parish president refused the application, citing the election by which Ward 3 had declared itself “dry.” Deer Enterprises subsequently sought a writ of mandamus to compel issuance of the permit, and the court granted the writ on September 17, 2009, citing this Court’s decision in Sabine Parish Police Jury v. Commissioner of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, 04-1833 (La.4/12/05); 898 So.2d 1244. Washington Parish subsequently filed a Motion for New Trial, based on the effect of Act 233 of the 2009 Regular Session of the legislature, which amended La. R.S. 26:583 to add subsection (C)(2) (hereinafter “the amendment” or § 583(C)(2)). Before the initial trial concluded, neither the parties nor the trial court were aware of this amendment, which had taken effect on August 15, 2009. The subsection, which exempts certain parishes from the effects of § 583, reads as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, any parish with a population between forty thousand and forty-five thousand, based upon the latest federal decennial census, shall not be subject to the provisions of Subsections A and B of this Section and shall retain the legal sales characteristics as provided for by referendum prior to any annexation or reapportionment. La. R.S. 26:583(0(2).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, five Louisiana parishes in 2000 had populations between 40,000 and 45,000: Avo-yelles, Webster, Lincoln, St. John the Baptist, and Washington. Because its population as measured by the 2000 census |swas 43,926, Washington Parish contends the recent amendment applies to it, and it is therefore exempted from the effects of § 583(A) and § 583(B). Deer Enterprises contends the amendment is unconstitutional, and it filed a Supplemental and Amending Petition to that effect before the new trial was held. After a hearing on January 20, 2010, the trial court found the amendment to be unconstitutional, ruling it is a local or special law in regulation of trade, as specifically proscribed by La. Const. Art. Ill, § 12(A)(6). The court ordered Washington Parish to issue the permit, and the parish government timely appealed.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

We begin by revisiting the analysis and historical background this Court provided in Sabine because it is directly relevant to the instant matter and informs the issue’s context. As we noted in that case, the legislature may delegate to political subdivisions the power to regulate traffic in alcoholic beverages. Sabine Parish Police Jury, 898 So.2d at 1250. However, this delegation does not cede the legislature’s authority to alter that power at any time. Id.

After the era of Prohibition ended with the repeal of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Louisiana Legislature passed laws allowing for the sale and production of alcoholic beverages. Id. The State delegated to parishes and municipalities the authority to hold local-option elections, empowering voters to decide whether to prohibit the sale of alcohol within their political subdivisions. Id. La. R.S. 26:583 governs the effect of local-option elections when political Rsubdivisions have been reorganized. In Sabine, the parish had reorganized itself into election districts, and Election District 6 comprised portions of Wards 3 and 5. Before the parish restructuring, Ward 3 had voted itself “dry”; Ward 5 had voted itself “wet.” As a result of this merger, we deemed Election District 6 entirely “wet,” and therefore the portion of Ward 3 contained within Election District 6 was compelled to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages. We note the instant matter presents a very similar set of factual circumstances, but it concerns another issue with entirely different considerations. The amendment in question in this case was passed after we interpreted La. R.S. 26:583 in Sabine, and it operates to exempt some parishes from the effects of that statute. We turn now to the question of whether that exemption is a valid exercise of legislative power.

The Louisiana Constitution forbids the legislature to pass a local or special law regarding any of the subjects enumerated in La. Const. Art. Ill, § 12(A). However, the Constitution does not define “local law” or “special law.” This Court’s jurisprudence and legal scholars have elucidated these terms, but the meaning of “local or special law” remains somewhat obscure in some contexts. Courts have been imprecise in distinguishing between the two, but they are distinctly different legislative prohibitions. Kimball v. Allstate Ins. Co., 97-2885 (La.4/14/98); 712 So.2d 46, 50 (citing Lee Hargrave, “Statutory" and “Hortatory” Provisions of the Louisiana Constitution of 1971, 43 La. L.Rev. 647, 668 (1983)).

It is not entirely clear from the record whether the trial court found § 583(C)(2) |Bto be a local law or a special law. The written judgment simply declares Act 233 of 2009, as it amends La. R.S. 26:583, to be unconstitutional. A transcript of the hearing shows the trial court referred to the amendment alternatively as a “local law” and as a “special law,” without conclusively placing it in either category. From the Act’s legislative history, the trial court determined the law is “intentionally meant to be a local law for ... west Webster Parish, but also affects the lovely parish just north of St. Tammany and east of Tangipahoa.” Later, the court held the plaintiff had “met its burden of proof by proving clearly and convincingly that the special law-further, there is no legitímate state interest and [sic] operates both in restraint of trade and against the protection rights of the plaintiff.” Apparently, the court concluded it was either a local or special law, stating: “So I do find that if not a local law, it is most certainly a special law....” Given this ambiguity in the trial court’s judgment, we must analyze both possibilities.

Whether § 583(C)(2) is a Local Law

The prohibition against certain local and special laws is “intended to reflect a policy decision that legislative resources and attention should be concentrated upon matters of general interest, and that purely local matters should be left to local governing authorities.” Kimball, 712 So.2d at 50 (citing H. Alston Johnson III, Legislative Process, 36 La. L.Rev. 549 (1976)). The terms “local” and “special” are used in contradistinction to the term “general.” Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Com’n, 94-2015, p. 7 (La.11/30/94); 646 So.2d 885, 889. General laws are those that “operate equally and uniformly upon all persons brought within the relations and circumstances for which they provide or that operate equally upon all persons of a designated class founded upon a reasonable and proper classification.” Polk v. Edwards, 626 So.2d 1128, 1134 (La.1993) (citing Knapp v. Jefferson-Plaquemines Drainage Dist., 224 La. 105, 68 So.2d 774 (1953)). The ultimate distinction “between public or general laws and local or special laws is that the former affect the community as a whole, whether throughout the State or one of its subdivisions; and the latter affect private persons, private property, private or local interests.” Louisiana Paddlewheels, 646 So.2d at 889 (citing Polk, 626 So.2d at 1135).

When the operation of a law is limited to certain parishes, it is immediately suspect as a local law. Kimball, 712 So.2d at 51. A statute is generally considered to be local if it operates only in a particular locality or localities without the possibility of extending its coverage to other areas should the requisite criteria exist or come to exist there. Id. However, a law is not local, even though its enforcement may be restricted to a particular locality or localities, where the conditions under which it operates simply do not pi'evail in other localities. Id. Thus, a law is not local if its coverage can extend to other localities or areas. State v. Brazley, 00-923 (La.11/28/00); 773 So.2d 718. Generally, a law that applies to localities within a certain population is not a local law because other localities potentially can meet the population trigger and become subject to the particular law. Id.

Initially, we note the operation of the challenged amendment presently is limited to five parishes by virtue of their populations. It is therefore immediately suspect as a local law. However, § 583(C)(2) may extend its application to other parishes if the requisite criterion comes to exist there, i.e., if those parishes fall within the population range. It is also possible that the five localities presently affected, including defendant Washington Parish, may expand or contract beyond the amendment’s reach. Because the triggering criterion is a relatively small range of 5,000 residents that is tied to the latest decennial census, and the 2010 census is 17nearing completion, a shift in the amendment’s coverage in the near future appears probable. Statistics from the 2000 census show 35 parishes in Louisiana had fewer than 40,000 residents. If Washington Parish has added 1,074 residents over the past 10 years, it has grown past the amendment’s purview; if Natchitoches Parish has gained 910 residents, it will fall within the amendment’s ambit. We refer to these possibilities, regardless of their likelihood, only to illustrate the potentially broad sweep of § 583(C)(2). The elastic application of the amendment, and the fluid nature of population dynamics, militate against a finding that § 588(C)(2) is prohibited as a local law.

Flexible application may not automatically render a statute general, but local laws typically contain a fixed classification. This principle is supported by legal commentators and demonstrated by our jurisprudence. Population classification statutes “are usually upheld as general laws because the courts consider the population differential as a reasonable basis for the creation of a separate class.” Huntington Odom, General and Special Laws in Louisiana, 16 La. L.Rev. 768, 773 (1956). “As long as the criteria for the population class do not prohibit subsequent entrance of other cities [or parishes] that reach the specified population, the legislation does not lose its character as a ‘general’ statute.” Johnson, 36 La. L.Rev. at 551-552. The principle is illustrated by our decision in Brazley, in which we affirmed a trial court’s judgment that Articles 340(E) and 342 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure were unconstitutional. Those provisions were based on population, but the figures used were fixed, not flexible. Both articles used the following phrase: “In any parish with a population in excess of four hundred ninety thousand, as established by the 1990 U.S. Decennial Census....” As we noted in that case, the 1990 Census figures were static. Brazley, 773 So.2d at 721. Because | gOrleans Parish was the only parish that met, or would ever meet, that population criterion, the articles operated only in one locality without the possibility of extending their coverage; therefore, the articles clearly were local laws. Id.

We recognize, of course, that a population classification may be used to mask an intent to target one locality. However, we do not concern ourselves with this legislative subterfuge when the purportedly local statute’s effects are general. The trial court in this matter found from the legislative history of § 583(C)(2) that it was “intentionally meant to be a local law for ... west Webster Parish,” and therefore determined it was a local law despite the fact that it also applies to Washington Parish. In so finding, the trial court apparently dismissed the law’s effects on other localities as incidental or unintended. However, a law that has general effects is not necessarily made local because it was drafted with one locality in mind. The fact that Washington Parish is the defendant in this matter, seeking to avail itself of the amendment’s exemption and preserve the wishes of Ward 3 to remain “dry,” obviously implicates interests beyond the locality that was the statute’s purported beneficiary. As we have explained, the amendment applies to five parishes presently but may extend its coverage in the future. Because the statute’s operation has general effects, we need not inquire into its legislative history to ascertain any underlying intent.

Ultimately, the population classification contained in § 583(C)(2) persuades us that it is not prohibited as a local law. The five parishes presently affected do not otherwise share characteristics such as geographical location; they are in separate regions of the State, with no apparent commonality relevant to the law’s effects other than their population and rural character. Because the statute connects population to the latest decennial census, it ensures the possibility that its coverage may change. We |9now turn to the question of whether the amendment is a special law.

Whether § 583(C)(2) is a Special Law

A special law confers special privileges or imposes peculiar disabilities or burdensome conditions in the exercise of a common right upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from the general body of those who stand in precisely the same relation to the subject of the law. Kimball, 712 So.2d at 52. A special law is generally one that “operates on and affects only a fraction of the persons or a portion of the property encompassed by a classification, granting privileges to some persons while denying them to others.” Id. (citing Odom, 16 La. L.Rev. at 770). In other words, a law is special if it “affects only a certain number of persons within a class and not all persons possessing the characteristics of the class.” Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana v. Vial, 317 So.2d 179, 183 (La.1975). A special law is “directed to secure some private advantage or advancement for the benefit of private persons.” Id. The prohibition on special laws “represents an important safeguard against the abuse of legislative power on behalf of special interests.” Id.

Initially, we note the amendment appears to have characteristics of a special law because it operates on a fraction of persons in certain parishes that have reorganized their political structure. However, § 583(C)(2) does not affect “the exercise of a common right,” though it appears to grant the “privilege” of exempting certain parishes from § 583(A) and § 583(B). The amendment does not bear the significant distinction of securing private advantages for private persons. Ultimately, it is not aimed at special interests.

Deer Enterprises argues the amendment is a special law because it “operates upon and affects only a fraction of the persons or property encompassed by the classification.” Plaintiff contends § 583(C)(2) subjects those parishes that meet the |lflpopulation criterion “to a different set of rules simply because of demographic distribution,” which is a “patent grant of privileges to some while denying them to others.” This argument implicitly defines the classification broadly by suggesting that the five affected parishes are treated differently from the other parishes. In other words, plaintiff reads the amendment as treating certain parishes as a subset of a larger class, which plaintiff apparently defines as those parishes that have reorganized their political subdivisions after parts of those subdivisions held local-option elections. Assuming arguendo that plaintiff correctly defines the improper classification, we next consider whether the classification grants privileges.

To determine whether the amendment grants or denies privileges, we must analyze the nature of the alleged privilege. A privilege is a “special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty. A privilege grants someone the legal freedom to do or not to do a given act. It immunizes conduct that, under ordinary circumstances, would subject the actor to liability.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1234 (8th ed.2004). Because plaintiff Deer Enterprises is the owner of a retail store and wishes to sell alcohol, plaintiff complains that privilege has been denied it. No citizen has an inherent right to sell alcoholic beverages, and “the business may be permitted under conditions such as will limit to the utmost the evils associated therewith.” City of Baton Rouge v. Rebowe, 226 La. 186, 75 So.2d 239 (1954). Selling alcoholic beverages therefore may be considered a privilege. See Roksvaag v. Reily, 237 La. 1094, 113 So.2d 285 (1959); see also Schwegmann Bros. v. Louisiana Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 216 La. 148, 43 So.2d 248 (1949). However, denying plaintiff this privilege is an incidental effect of § 583(C)(2). The amendment does not directly confer or abrogate that privilege. The statute concerns the effect of local-option elections, and | nit is those elections that decide whether a retail establishment may sell alcoholic beverages. In other words, it is the electors of that ward or district who control whether it will be “dry,” not § 583(C)(2). Therefore, the amendment does not grant or deny the privilege of selling alcoholic beverages.

The amendment concerns the effect of referenda after political restructuring, and the exemption from that effect is the “privilege” at issue. To be specific, the amendment grants to portions of political subdivisions in some parishes the “privilege” of maintaining the effect of their local-option elections. We do not read § 583(C)(2) to grant a privilege as proscribed by the Louisiana Constitution. If it grants the freedom “to do or not to do a given act,” the “act” involved is the enforcement by parish authorities of local referenda. Although it grants an exemption from, or immunity to, § 583(A) and § 583(B), it does not create an exception to a duty because the effect of local referenda is not a duty. It does not immunize any actors from liability. This examination of the rights concerned leads us to the conclusion that § 583(C)(2) does not grant any unconstitutional privilege. As we noted in Sabine, the electors in any ward or election district may petition to hold a local-option election pursuant to La. R.S. 26:582. The amendment does not abrogate that right; that right is preserved.

Finally, we are persuaded § 583(C)(2) is not a special law because the persons it affects are parish residents generally, not business owners specifically. Deer Enterprises does not allege § 583(C)(2) is intended to benefit private parties, and we cannot discern any special interests that benefit from it. Although residents of some “dry” wards benefit from the amendment in the sense that then votes remain effective, it can hardly be said this is the type of private advantage the Louisiana Constitution proscribes. Hypothetically, the amendment could operate to enable a “wet” ward to [ ^remain so after it were made a part of a “dry” election district, in which case the amendment would benefit private sellers of alcoholic beverages in those localities. However, plaintiff does not allege such a circumstance, and it is not before us. Moreover, the fact that the amendment operates both ways-to preserve the effect of local-option referenda, whether the result is “dry” or “wet”-persuades us no special interests are involved. Deer Enterprises argues § 583(C)(2) contains elements of both local and special laws, apparently contending the special interests involved are the affected localities. But this argument conflates the very different aims of the constitutional prohibition. Local laws are prohibited because they benefit certain localities; special laws are prohibited because they benefit special interests. The two are not equivalent. Although we do not reject the possibility that a sort of hybrid local and special law might exist, § 583(C)(2) is not that legislative anomaly. Although it operates “only in a particular locality or localities,” its effects are triggered by population shifts. Although it ostensibly confers a kind of privilege on portions of those localities, it does not benefit special interests. In short, it is not an unconstitutional abuse of legislative power.

Whether § 583(C)(2) Violates Equal Protection Rights

Deer Enterprises also alleges the amendment violates the constitutional provision that “No person shall be denied equal protection of the laws.” La. Const. Art. 1, § 3. Under this provision courts must decline to enforce a legislative classification of individuals in three situations: (1) When the law classifies individuals by race or religious beliefs, it shall be repudiated completely; (2) When the law classifies persons on the basis of birth, age, sex, culture, physical condition or political ideas or affiliations, its enforcement shall be refused unless the State shows the classification has a reasonable basis; (3) When the law classifies | ^individuals on any other basis, it shall be rejected whenever a member of a disadvantaged class shows that it does not suitably further any appropriate State interest. Sibley v. Louisiana Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ., 477 So.2d 1094, 1107 (La.1985).

Plaintiff contends § 583(C)(2) created a class of persons defined by those individuals living in parishes with a population of 40,000 to 45,000. The trial court apparently agreed, finding the amendment “operates ... against the protection rights of the plaintiff.” However, we reject the fundamental premise of plaintiffs argument, i.e. that § 583(C)(2) creates a class of persons. On the contrary, the amendment does not concern individuals. It refers to “any parish” and makes no mention of persons; it therefore does not classify individuals. We discussed this critical distinction in Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 2000-1132 (La.4/3/01); 785 So.2d 1. In that case, the City of New Orleans and another plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a statute, which the city contended violated its equal protection rights. But Article I of the Louisiana Constitution protects only the rights of “persons” and does not protect government entities against unjust government action. Id. at 15. Although Washington Parish is the defendant in this matter and does not challenge the constitutionality of § 583(C)(2), the same logic applies to the parties and the statute in this matter. The amendment classifies parishes, not individuals, according to their population, and the protections of La. Const. Art. I therefore do not apply.

The trial court was clearly wrong in ruling the amendment violates the plaintiffs equal protection rights. Because we find § 583(C)(2) does not classify individuals, we need not reach the issue of whether it suitably furthers an appropriate state interest.

CONCLUSION

114Because La. R.S. 26:583(0(2) applies to several, dissimilar parishes based on the changeable characteristic of the parishes’ populations, with the possibility of extending its coverage to other parishes, it is not a local law. Because it does not benefit special interests, it is not a special law. Because it does not impermissibly classify individuals, it does not violate plaintiffs equal protection rights. Accordingly, plaintiffs constitutional challenge to the amendment fails. The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

REVERSED.

WEIMER, J., concurs & assigns reasons.

WEIMER, J.,

concurring.

U concur in the result, believing it is unnecessary to decide the constitutional issues because this matter can be resolved statutorily based on the reasons cited in my dissent in Sabine Parish Police Jury v. Commissioner of Alcohol & Tobacco Control, 04-1833 (La.4/12/05), 898 So.2d 1244, 1259-60 (Weimer, J., dissenting).

      . The statute provides, in pertinent part:
      A. When a portion of a ward, election district, or municipality is annexed or made a part of another ward, election district, municipality, or city-parish government, the portion annexed or made a part of shall take on the legal sales characteristics, as provided in this Chapter, or the ward, election district, municipality, or city-parish government to which it is annexed or made a part of.

      . The provision states, in pertinent part:
      Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, the legislature shall not pass a local or special law:
      (1) For the holding and conducting of elections, or fixing or changing the place of voting.

      (6) Regulating labor, trade, manufacturing, or agriculture, or agriculture; fixing the rate of interest.

      . "[C]ourts should refrain from reaching or determining the constitutionality of legislation unless, in the context of a particular case, the resolution of this is essential to the decision of the case or controversy.” Rogoz v. Tangipahoa Parish Council, 08-2789, p. 5 (La.1/30/09), 21 So.3d 923, 925, citing Cat’s Meow v. City of New Orleans, 98-0601, pp. 16-17 (La.10/20/98), 720 So.2d 1186, 1199.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Henry Adam BALTAZAR, et al. v. Dennis R. WOLINSKI, et al.
    No. 2011-C-0051.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 4, 2011.
   PER CURIAM.

| iAlthough there is no direct evidence to support the approximately $164,000.00 In-tervenor claims as owing pursuant to a worker’s compensation lien, and no evidence of a stipulation to that amount, Plaintiffs counsel prayed in the trial court “that Intervenor be paid $88,250.84 out of net proceeds for its total intervention.” This prayer evidences an acknowledgment by Plaintiff that this lesser amount, i.e., $38,250.84, could be substantiated by the Intervenor and was owing. When the court of appeal completely nullified the award to the Intervenor, the court of appeal gave no effect to Plaintiffs earlier acknowledgment and granted Plaintiff relief never sought in the trial court. See Rule 1-3 of the Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal (“The Courts of Appeal will review only issues which were submitted to the trial court and which are contained in specifications or assignments of error.”). We reverse the ruling of the court of appeal and render judgment in the amount of $33,250.84 to be deducted from plaintiffs damages award, and which amount shall be apportioned as $22,167.23 to intervenor, and | ¾$11,083.61 to plaintiffs counsel. See LSA-R.S. 23:1103(0(1). In all other respects, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed. WRIT GRANTED.

       Kimball, C.J. not participating in the decision.


text:
    In re Attlah BURRELL.
    No. 2011-B-0242.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 4, 2011.
   PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to properly supervise her nonlawyer staff and facilitated the unauthorized practice of law by a suspended attorney. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Attlah Deniece Burrell, Louisiana Bar Roll number 24764, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, retroactive to February 20, 2008, the date of her interim suspension.

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.

       Knoll, J., recused; Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re Thomas M. DISCON.
    No. 2011-B-0253.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 4, 2011.
   PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent obtained and confirmed a default judgment even though he was aware of the defendant’s representation by an attorney in identical litigation pending in a different venue. Prior to the institution of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Thomas M. Discon, Louisiana Bar Roll number 14219, be publicly reprimanded.

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.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Isaiah DOYLE.
    No. 2011-KK-597.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 2011.
   WRIT GRANTED; STAY LIFTED

hThe court of appeal correctly ruled that defendant may introduce evidence of mental retardation, defect, and/or diminished capacity at the guilt stage of trial as part of the circumstances surrounding the making of a confession for jurors to consider in determining the weight or probative value given the statement. La.C.Cr.P. art. 708(G); see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986)(“[R]egardless of whether the defendant marshaled the same evidence earlier in support of an unsuccessful motion to suppress, and entirely independent of any question of voluntariness, a defendant’s case may stand or fall on his ability to convince the jury that the manner in which the confession was obtained casts doubts on its credibility.”).

However, the court of appeal erred in requiring the trial court to give the jury a limiting instruction that it is not to consider this evidence as having any bearing on the defendant’s mental capacity at the time of the offense. Defendant has entered a dual plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity and may |2present evidence that he is mentally retarded so as to attempt to establish as a result of a mental disease or defect he was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time of the offense. LSA-R.S.14:14; see State v. Delpit, 341 So.2d 876, 877 (La.1977)(reversing conviction for armed robbery on grounds that trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to change his plea from not guilty to a dual insanity plea on the basis of evidence that he was classified as borderline mentally retarded and that his low mentality impaired his ability to make rational everyday decisions “and to determine ‘right or wrong’ in certain situations”); cf. State v. Brown, 414 So.2d 689, 695 (La.1982)(testimony offered by the defendant at trial in connection with his dual insanity plea “established to a certainty” that he was mildly retarded but failed to carry his burden by a preponderance of the evidence that he was unable to distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the offense). The provisions of La. C.Cr.P. art. 905.5.1, governing the determination of mental retardation during the sentencing phase of a capital trial, relate solely to the question of whether, assuming that he was sane at the time of the offense and therefore morally culpable for his act as determined by a jury during the guilt phase, a defendant is nevertheless exempt from capital punishment because he is mentally retarded. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).

JOHNSON, J., concurs in the result.

       Kimball, C.J. not participating in the decision.


text:
    David LOCKE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-OK-2048.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2010.
   In re Locke, David; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 01-CR2-081848; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0896.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John GREEN.
    No. 2011-KK-0069.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 487-028; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0028.

Writ granted. The trial court’s ruling is reinstated.

JOHNSON, WEIMER and CLARK, JJ., would deny the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF FACILITY PLANNING & CONTROL v. IFINITY SURETY AGENCY, L.L.C., Benetech, L.L.C., and JRDKS Construction, L.L.C., A Joint Venture, and Benetech, L.L.C.; and JRDKS Construction, L.L.C.
    No. 2010-C-2264.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Division of Administration; Office of Facility Planning & Control; State of Louisiana et al.; —Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 577,412; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0128.

Granted.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Harold BULLER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0203.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Buller, Harold; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 67,176; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 09-01122.

Writ granted; relief denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Franklin D. BLACKWELL.
    No. 2010-KK-2823.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Department of Children and Family Services; —Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 475636; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1722.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Corey MACKEY.
    No. 2011-KK-0138.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 18, 2011.
   In re Mackey, Corey; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, Nos. 485-697, 475-360; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0076.

Granted.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ, would deny.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Keith HALL.
    No. 2011-KK-0132.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 18, 2011.
   In re Hall, Keith; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 475-183.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    Camille LANDRY, Individually, and on Behalf of her Minor Child, Tai Landry v. PSA OF LAFAYETTE, LLC.
    No. 2011-CC-0131.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 18, 2011.
   In re Pediatric Services of America, Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2004-5188; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 11-00041.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    Camille LANDRY, Individually, and on behalf of her Minor Child, Tai Landry v. PSA OF LAFAYETTE, LLC.
    No. 2011-CD-0130.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 18, 2011.
   In re Pediatric Services of America, Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2004-5188.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    Camille LANDRY, Individually, and on Behalf of her Minor Child, Tai Landry v. PSA OF LAFAYETTE, LLC.
    No. 2011-CD-0125.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 18, 2011.
   In re Pediatric Services of America, Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2004-5188.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    In re Stephen V. VALLOT.
    No. 2011-OB-0101.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 19, 2011.
   In re Vallot, Stephen V.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Petition for Transfer to Disability Inactive Status.

Granted.


text:
    Blaise DiBENEDETTO v. NOBLE DRILLING COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-0163.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 21, 2011.
   In re DiBenedetto, Blaise; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2008-7754; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0089.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Carlos JACKSON.
    No. 2011-KK-0155.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 24, 2011.
   In re Jackson, Carlos; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 498-368; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0043.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant with reasons.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Christopher Louis CLARK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0136.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 24, 2011.
   In re Clark, Christopher Louis; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 09-CR3-103283; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW1541.

Relator represents' that the district court has failed to act timely on a writ of habeas corpus filed on or about July 21, 2010. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the application. If relator’s representation is incorrect, the district court is ordered to accept, file and act upon the pleading which is herewith transferred to the district court. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.


text:
    In re Tanner MAGEE.
    No. 2010-OB-2812.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 25, 2011.
   In re Magee, Tanner; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated January 5, 2011; Applying for Permission to Take February, 2011 Bar Exam.

Reconsideration denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Walter GIBSON.
    No. 2011-KK-0002.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 26, 2011.
   In re Gibson, Walter; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 902597; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1785.

Denied.


text:
    In re Christy Marie RHOADES.
    No. 2011-OB-0191.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 26, 2011.
   In re Rhoades, Christy Marie; —Plaintiff; Applying For Permission to Take Bar Examination.

Denied.


author: WEIMER, J.,

text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyrone ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2218.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Allen, Tyrone; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 92-5998; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 93-KA-844, 97-KH-331.

Granted. Pursuant to this Court’s order in State v. Cordero, 08-KH-1717 (La.10/3/08), 993 So.2d 203, the application is transferred to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal to address according to the procedures adopted by the court in its en banc order of September 9, 2008.

WEIMER, J.,

concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons assigned in Cordero, 08-1717 (La.10/3/08), 993 So.2d 203.


text:
    Daniel ARCENEAUX, Louis Daverede, Jr., Vives Lemmon and Jules Menesses v. AMSTAR CORPORATION, Amstar Sugar Corporation, Tate and Lyle North American Sugars, Inc., and Domino Sugar Company.
    No. 2010-C-2329.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Continental Casualty Company; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District- Court Div. B, No. 86-959; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-0980.

Granted.


text:
    Charles EBINGER, et ux. v. VENUS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2010-C-2516.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Post-Tension Slabs Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2003-5416; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 10-1094, CW 09-1407.

Granted.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Surge SHERMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1682.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Sherman, Surge; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 91-3507; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-KH-494.

Granted. Pursuant to this Court’s order in State v. Cordero, 08-KH-1717 (La.10/3/08), 993 So.2d 203, the application is transferred to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal to address according to the procedures adopted by the court in its en banc order of September 9, 2008.

WEIMER, J.,

concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons assigned in State v. Cordero, 08-1717 (La.10/03/08), 993 So.2d 203.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Luis RODRIGUEZ v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2855.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Rodriguez, Luis; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 97-6177; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-KK-1421.

Granted. Pursuant to this Court’s order in State v. Cordero, 08-KH-1717 (La.10/3/08), 993 So.2d 203, the application is transferred to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal to address according to the procedures adopted by the court in its en banc order of September 9, 2008.

WEIMER, J.,

concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons assigned in State v. Cordero, 08-1717 (La.10/03/08), 993 So.2d 203.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Brian MITCHELL.
    No. 2011-KK-0015.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Mitchell, Brian; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 00-1395; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-977.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Peter DOMINGUEZ.
    No. 2010-KK-2781.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Dominguez, Pete; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 478560; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 18 68.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    Delisa MITCHELL, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Child, Darion Mitchell v. Albert ROY, Jr., and Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-2695.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company; Roy Jr., Albert et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2008-4964; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-563.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Leola HARRISON v. Will Henry ROGERS, Usagencies Casualty Insurance Co., Leonard E. Street, State Farm Insurance Co., Imperial Fire & Casualty Co.
    No. 2010-OC-2694.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Harrison, Leola; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 06-81; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,641-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Jeannie HEITMAN, et al. v. CHRISTUS HEALTH CENTRAL d/b/a Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital, et al.
    No. 2010-C-2693.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Heitman O.D., Daniel; Heitman, Jeannie et al.; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 228,728; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-458.

Denied.


text:
    Catherine COBB v. LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 2010-C-2692.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Cobb, Catherine; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, Office of Workers’ Compensation District 4, No. 01-03123; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-430.

Denied.


text:
    Ruby L. HAWKINS v. PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION.
    No. 2010-C-2675.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 02, No. 09-04181; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-402.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    LAROSE SCRAP & SALVAGE, INC. v. LONG ISLAND LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2674.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Long Island Land & Development Company LLC et al.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 03-80825; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00981.

Denied.


text:
    Andrew RICHARD, et al. v. Robert BRASSEAUX, Jr., et al.
    No. 2010-C-2673.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Richard, Andrew et al.; Richard, Jenna; Richard, Susan; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Divs. K, E, L, Nos. 83771, 84548, 84592; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 10-409, 10-410,10-411.

Denied.


text:
    Ida Cosey WYLIE, et al. v. Joseph C. PELTIER, Jr.
    No. 2010-C-2672.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Peltier Jr., Joseph C. et al.; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; —Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 81,549; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-332.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    IESI-LA CORPORATION v. The LaSALLE PARISH POLICE JURY, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2671.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re CWI-White Oaks Landfill, L.L.C.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lasalle, 28th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 34,314; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01024.

Denied.


text:
    Kim Colvin BIRCH v. Gilford Raymond BIRCH.
    No. 2010-C-2670.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Birch, Kim Colvin; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 48,743; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-702-CA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Brandon L. FRANKLIN.
    No. 2010-KK-2665.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Franklin, Brandon L.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 702359; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010-KW-1513.

Denied.


text:
    Charlotte AMOS and Norman Artez Amos, Individually and as Natural Tutor of Charlita Thomas v. Police Officer Kristopher L. WALKER, The Town of Jonesboro and Louisiana Municipal Risk Management.
    No. 2010-C-2664.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Amos, Charlotte et al.; Amos, Norman Artez; Thomas, Charlita; —Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jackson, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 29,618; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,679-CA.

Denied.


text:
    IESI LA CORPORATION v. The LASALLE PARISH POLICE JURY, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2659.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Town of Pollock; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lasalle, 28th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 34,314; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00997.

Denied.


text:
    David Rene DUGAS, M.D., W.J. Liles, M.D., Claude B. Minor, Jr., M.D., Benjamin M. Stage, M.D., Randolph H. Taylor, M.D. and Edward Worley II, M.D. v. Mike BREARD, Rhonda Haygood, and P. Gary Jones, M.D.
    No. 2010-C-2646.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Dugas M.D., David Rene et al.; Liles M.D., W.J.; Minor M.D., Claude B.; Stage M.D., Benjamin M.; Taylor M.D., Randolph H.; Worley II M.D., E. Edward; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Oua-chita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 09-1670; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,666-CA.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Kenneth Eugene CARROLL.
    No. 2010-CC-2641.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Carroll, Jason et al.; Carroll, Kenneth; Carroll, Stephen; Urrate, Kelly Carroll; — Other(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 645-492; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 2009-C-1076.

Denied.


text:
    Jennifer HOOKS and Beatrice Hooks, Individually and on Behalf of all others Similarly Situated v. BOH BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO., L.L.C., Robert H. Boh, Robert S. Boh, and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-2635.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Hooks, Beatrice; Hooks, Jennifer et al.; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 2007-15849; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0536.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Nevelle Holder BELL, Sr.
    No. 2010-C-2629.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 121181; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0583.

Denied.

KNOLL and CLARK, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Marvin GORMAN v. Dr. Daniel FREY, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2626.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Frey, Dr. Daniel et al.; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center; State of Louisiana; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, Nos. 07-221, 08-13120; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-0771.

Denied.

CLARK, J., would grant.


text:
    Michael and Donna TUCKER, Individually and on Behalf of their Deceased Son, Michael Blake Tucker v. Jack Douglas WALKER and Government Employees Insurance Company (“Geico”).
    No. 2010-CC-2625.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Tucker, Donna; Tucker, Michael et al.; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 558,179; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 0777.

Denied.


text:
    CONAGRA FOODS, INC. v. Cynthia BRIDGES, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-C-2621.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Bridges (Secretary), Cynthia et al.; Department of Revenue; State of Louisiana; —Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 562,461; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0907.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Damion LOUIS.
    No. 2010-KK-2614.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Louis, Damion; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 479-658; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1132.

Denied.


text:
    BARBER BROTHERS CONTRACTING COMPANY, LLC v. EAST BATON ROUGE CITY-PARISH, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
    No. 2010-C-2610.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re City of Baton Rouge, et al.; Parish of East Baton Rouge; —Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 569,723; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0329.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rogers LACAZE.
    No. 2010-KK-2576.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 375-992.

Denied.

VICTORY and KNOLL, JJ, would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Larry HOWARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2510.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Howard, Larry; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 08-09-0484; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1079.

Denied.


text:
    Ken and Inda KLEINSCHMIDT v. Louis J. LANZA, III, Individually; and d/b/a Lan-Coast, L.L.C.; Craig Condon Individually; Lan-Coast L.L.C., a Limited Liability Corporation; and Lan-Coast L.L.C., a Partnership Between Louis J. Lanza, III and Craig Condon.
    No. 2010-C-2478.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Lanza III, Louis J. et al.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2008-7411; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0540.

Denied.


text:
    In the Matter of the SUCCESSION OF Willie Willard SEAL.
    No. 2010-C-2294.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Klein, Karen E.; Klein, Ronald Keith et al.; —Other(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 13,210; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0351.

Denied.

KIMBALL, C.J., and GUIDRY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Terry M. FERGUSON.
    No. 2010-KO-1744.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Ferguson, Terry M.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 478-091; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0199.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Terry M. FERGUSON.
    No. 2010-KO-1743.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Ferguson, Terry M.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 277-265; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0200.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Diverious HOLDEN.
    No. 2010-KO-1725.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Holden, Diverious; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Winn, 8th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 41073; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,367-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Steve Byron ROBERT.
    No. 2010-KO-1705.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Robert, Steve Byron; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 257551; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,339-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Clarence JOHNSON.
    No. 2010-KO-1704.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Johnson, Clarence; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 03-8005; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-992.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John E. WATTS.
    No. 2010-K-1685.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Watts, John E.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 473-701; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-0912.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Walter BLACK.
    No. 2010-KO-1678.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Black, Walter; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 484-299; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-1664.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Catina CURLEY.
    No. 2010-K-1674.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Curley, Catina; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 461-907; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-1157.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darris Seymoray DORSEY.
    No. 2010-K-1641.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Dorsey, Darris Seymoray; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 08-178419; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0151.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Conrad Joseph CHIASSON.
    No. 2010-KO-1637.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Chiasson, Conrad Joseph; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 506,123; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0205.

Denied.


text:
    Leroy MATTHEWS, Jr. v. LOUISIANA PAROLE BOARD.
    No. 2010-OK-1631.
    Supreme. Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Matthews Jr., Leroy; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 574,561; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0147.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of R.S.
    No. 2010-CK-1614.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re R.S.; —Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Juvenile Court Orleans Parish, No. 2009-208-02-DQ-E; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-1444.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Curtis HAYNES.
    No. 2010-K-1610.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Haynes, Curtis; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 603,374; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0001.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Calvin Wayne MITCHELL.
    No. 2010-KO-1605.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Mitchell, Calvin Wayne; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2006-169650; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 2124.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Glenn HARRISON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0272.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Harrison, Glenn; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 337-862; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 09-K-0712.

Denied.


text:
    Talama LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-CI-0225.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Lewis, Talama; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 03-3121; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-959.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Dwayne WILSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0221.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Wilson, Dwayne; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2009-180372; 147,701; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1965.

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. David LEE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0218.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Lee, David; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 405-129; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1513.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kerry A. JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0217.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Jones, Kerry A.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 04-1105; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-795.

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. Mozine JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0215.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Johnson, Mozine; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 05-2244; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KK-960.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Terry BAGNERIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0214.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Bagneris, Terry; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 410-196; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1606.

Denied. Untimely, not cognizable on collateral review, 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; La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert Kevin McCartney v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0212.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re McCartney, Robert Kevin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 234,925; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01052.

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. Reginald WALLER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-OK-0211.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Waller, Reginald; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 03-03-0193; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009-KW-2005.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Preston DEMOUCHET, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0210.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Demouchet Jr., Preston G.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 31861; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH09-1562;

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Troy SEEGER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-OK-0209.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re: Seeger, Troy; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 420606; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1834.

Denied. State v. McKinney, 406 So.2d 160, 161 (La.1981).


text:
    Errick Jermaine ARCENEAUX v. Warden James LeBLANC, Lane Thomas, Steve Rader, Colonel John Smith, Mr. Thurmble, Ms. Faith, Sergeant J. Bennet, Sergeant Falcon, Captains Mily, Sparngleu, Ramesey, and Franklin.
    No. 2010-CI-0208.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Areeneaux, Errick Jermaine; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 564,719; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No.2009 CA 0885.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David FOREMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0206.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Foreman, David; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 10302, 9739; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1864.

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. Nathaniel LAMBERT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0205.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Lambert, Nathaniel; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 367-036; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2009-K-1558, 2010-K-1097.

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. John S. LINDSEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0204.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Lindsey, John S.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 383021; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1788.

Denied. Repetitive. Cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Mondrell WILSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0185.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Wilson, Mondrell; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 242,053; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-244-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony Glen WILSON.
    No. 2009-KO-2655.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Wilson, Anthony Glen; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 07-F0883; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 44,586-KA, 44,737-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jermaine PAGE.
    No. 2010-KK-2522.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Page, Jermaine; —Defendant(s); Applying for Rehearing of this Courts order dated November 12, 2010; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 491-895; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2010-K-1541.

Rehearing denied.

JOHNSON and KNOLL, JJ., would grant rehearing.


text:
    Mark ALLERTON v. Leslie BROUSSARD and James Edwards.
    No. 2010-C-2071.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Mercury County Mutual Insurance Company; —Defendant; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s action dated December 10, 2010; Parish of Jefferson, Jefferson First Parish Court No. 143-222; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-CA-110.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Simon HARRELL and Clara Harrell v. ERRIS-OMEGA PLANTATION, et al.
    No. 2010-C-2059.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Erris-Omega Plantation Inc. et al.; —Defendants; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s Order, dated December 17, 2010;. Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District District Court, Div. G, No. 222,091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-138.

Rehearing denied.

KNOLL and CLARK, JJ., would grant rehearing.


text:
    Christian VACCARI v. Joan Y. VACCARI.
    No. 2010-C-2016.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Vaccari, Christian; —Plaintiff; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s action dated December 10, 2010; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2004-10277; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1945.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael MILLER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2809.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Miller, Michael; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated December 10, 2010; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 332641; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1748.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Mary JAGNEAUX v. LAFAYETTE CITY PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2634.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Lafayette City Parish Consolidated Government; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2008-5013; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00858.

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


text:
    ROZEL ENERGY II, L.L.C. v. Larry COUPEL and Natalie Coupel.
    No. 2010-C-2303.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Coupel, Larry et al. —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated December 10, 2010; Parish of Assumption, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. E, No. 28723; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1764.

Reconsideration not considered. See Supreme Court Rule IX, Section 6.


text:
    Judith Woods FRYE v. Olan MILLS.
    No. 2010-C-2624.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Frye, Judith Woods; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 1-W, Nos. 0907447, 0907450; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 45,557-WCA, 45,558-WCA.

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


text:
    In re APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 09-PDB-023.
    No. 2010-OB-2550.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Brock, Richard A.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 08-PDB-023.

Denied.


text:
    Justo E. ROQUE, Jr. v. Miguel A. ELIAS, A Professional Law Corporation.
    No. 2010-OC-2420.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Roque, Jr., Justo E.; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated December 17, 2010; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 670-351; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-C-340.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edward BADON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0150.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
   In re Badon, Edward; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Action, dated December 17, 2010; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. H, No. 367-715; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit No. 2009-K-1533.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert L. NORWOOD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0216.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 31, 2011.
   In re Norwood, Robert L.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 27£M52.

The application is transferred to the district court with instructions to the district judge to act on relator’s motion to correct illegal sentence filed via certified mail receipt on December 6, 2010. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment. A copy of the application is attached.


text:
    A. Remy FRANSEN and Allain F. Hardin v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
    No. 2010-OC-0221.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 31, 2011.
   In re Rue Esplanade Unit Owners Association; —Other; Applying For, Parish of Orleans.

Denied. Relator must first seek relief in the district court.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana In the Interest of E.C., A.H., S.G. & A.G.
    No. 2011-CJ-0098.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 2, 2011.
   In re J.G.; —Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of La-fourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 9485; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CJ 1505.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Eric BONE.
    No. 2011-KK-0127.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 2, 2011.
   In re Bone, Eric; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 09-4310; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-K-843.

Denied. Untimely.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Sean C. BAILEY.
    No. 2011-KD-0239.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 3, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 488-464.

Stay denied, writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gregory BRIGHT and Earl Truvia.
    No. 2010-KK-2709.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 487-447; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0976.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    EAGLE PIPE AND SUPPLY, INC. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2010-C-2267.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Acme Truck Line Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 2008-7335; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009 CA 0298.

Granted.


text:
    Bryan McCARTHY and Brandee McCarthy v. E & L DEVELOPMENT, INC.
    No. 2010-C-2739.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re McCarthy, Brandee; McCarthy, Bryan et al.; —Plaintiff»; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 514,250; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,683-CA.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Mark Ellis WILBURN.
    No. 2010-CC-2696.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Wilburn, Nancy L.; —Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 61858; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01076.

Denied.


text:
    In Reference to the INTERDICTION OF Jeannette Weadd JONES.
    No. 2010-C-2738.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Carter, Marybelle Jones et al.; Hills, Claudette Jones; Jones, Cynthia; — Other(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2008-6929; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-CA-66.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    Chalin O. PEREZ, Jr. v. SUCCESSION OF Chalin O. PEREZ.
    No. 2010-CC-2538.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Perez Jr., Chalin O.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 50-116; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CC-1144.

Denied.


text:
    Mary Elizabeth Embry McINTYRE v. Diane Dickhaus SUSSMAN, Wife of and David C. Sussman, Home Spec, Inc., George V. Swain, Wilkinson & Jeansonne, LLC d/b/a French Quarter Realty, and Brett Massony.
    No. 2010-OC-2716.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Lexington Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2006-12864; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-1281.

Denied.


text:
    Lola Gibbs GROSJEAN v. Robert E. GROSJEAN and Palmetto Farms, L.L.C. formerly known as Palmetto Farms, an Ordinary Partnership.
    No. 2010-C-2619.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Grosjean Contractors Inc.; Gros-jean, Robert E. et al.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 124,502; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-529-CA.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    Craig Steven ARABIE, et al. v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2010-C-2605.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Citgo Petroleum Corporation et al.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calca-sieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2007-2738; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-244.

Granted.


text:
    EAGLE PIPE AND SUPPLY, INC. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2010-C-2272.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. et al.; Shell Offshore Inc.; Shell Oil Company; SWEPI L.P.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 2008-7335; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009 CA 0298.

Granted.


text:
    EAGLE PIPE AND SUPPLY, INC. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    Nos. 2010-C-2275.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Packard Truck Lines Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 2008-7335; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009 CA 0298.

Granted.


text:
    EAGLE PIPE AND SUPPLY, INC. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2010-C-2279.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Patterson Truck Lines Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 2008-7335; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009 CA 0298.

Granted.


text:
    EAGLE PIPE AND SUPPLY, INC. v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2010-C-2289.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Ace Transportation L.L.C; Dynasty Transportation L.L.C; Venture Transport Logistics Holdings L.L.C; Venture Transport Logistics L.L.C.; —Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 2008-7335; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009 CA 0298.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Todd Andrew JONES.
    No. 2010-K-0762.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 288,416; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-937.

Granted.


text:
    Eureka Panmonte DEMERY v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT.
    No. 2010-C-2710.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Demery, Eureka Panmonte; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 498,221; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,615-CA.

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


text:
    Audrey THOMPSON, et al. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2010-C-1244.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Government Employees Insurance Company; —Defendant(s); Applying for Rehearing of this Courts order dated November 19, 2010; Parish of Rapides, Alexandria City Court, No. 110,030; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1369.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Virgil L. SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0220.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Smith, Virgil L.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 334349; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 0192.

Denied. Because relator did not seek an extension of time until after the delay period for filing an application for writs in this Court expired and his conviction became final, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 922(B); La. S.Ct.R. X section 5, he may no longer seek direct review in this Court. Relator may file additional claims for relief in an application for post-conviction relief directed to the court in which he was convicted, La. C.Cr.P. art. 926, subject to the time limits imposed by La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Stanley WASHINGTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0223.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Washington, Stanley; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 93,166; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-220-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Paul E. STEWART, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0224.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Stewart Sr., Paul E.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Paxish of Allen, 83th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2009-0-2178; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01149.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. See also La.C.Cr.P. art. 925.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Willie PETERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0226.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Peters, Willie; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 288-175; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1544.

Denied. 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(A); La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).

JOHNSON, J., recused.


text:
    Harold Joe BLACK v. James LEBLANC, et al.
    No. 2010-CI-0231.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Black, Harold Joe; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 568,215; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 1824.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ernest BILLIZONE, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0232.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Billizone Sr., Ernest; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 92-2084; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-958.

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. Joshua W. CURRAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0233.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Curran, Joshua W.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 01-07-0135; to the Court of Appeal/ First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 2396.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John SUITT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0234.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Suitt, John; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 290866, 290867; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1850.

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. Stanley S. DORSEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0235.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Dorsey, Stanley S.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 04-7986; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-965.

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. Theodore J. PHILLIPS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0236.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Phillips, Theodore J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 162543; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2055.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Rodney PAMILTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0273.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Pamilton, Rodney; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 242,321; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-261-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jeffery C. FORD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0274.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Ford, Jeffery C; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 432-472; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1720.

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; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gerald WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0276.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Williams, Gerald; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 04-F0512; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-260-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.

CLARK, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vincent T. ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0278.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Allen, Vincent T.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 449-097; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1731.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Duane DANIELS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0284.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Daniels, Duane; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 432-914; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 09-K-1661.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ruchell MAGEE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0297.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Magee, Ruchell; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 10,755.

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. Bobby HENDERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0327.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Henderson, Bobby; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 16,187; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No 45,-259-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. Douglas JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0329.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Jones, Douglas; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 321-894; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1448.

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. William POWELL.
    No. 2010-CI-0339.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Powell, William; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E. No. 322-867; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1722.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronnie T. CASBORN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0357.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Casborn, Ronnie T.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 329935; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2033.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Willie GIPSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0369.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Gipson, Willie; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 384-121; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1557.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John H. COOLEY.
    No. 2010-KP-1209.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Cooley, John H.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 358320; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0297.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas HAYNES.
    No. 2010-KP-1219.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Haynes, Thomas; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 08-02-0772; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0277.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth McGEORGE.
    No. 2010-KP-1349.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re McGeorge, Kenneth; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 349912; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0347.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ivory BLAIR.
    No. 2010-K-1690.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, No.; Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 483^24; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0565.

Denied.

KNOLL and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rocky BOURG.
    No. 2010-KO-1702.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Bourg, Rocky; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 07-K-3432-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1291.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tommy BORDELON.
    No. 2010-KO-1745.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Bordelon, Tommy; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 118,447A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1245.

Denied.


text:
    Michael Edward BLAKE v. Alicia Dimarco BLAKE.
    No. 2011-CC-0231.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
   In re Blake, Michael Edward; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 52-267; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1525.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bryant BOUDOIN.
    No. 2011-KK-0276.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 2011.
   In re Boudoin, Bryant; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 10^4343; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-K-124.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    Shawn BURNETT v. JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, The Parish of St. Tammany and the State of Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
    No. 2010-CC-2608.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Burnett, Shawn; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2010-10742; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1275.

Granted.


text:
    In re APPEAL OF the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 10-PDB-074.
    No. 2010-OB-2786.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Scott, Bobbie J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 10-PDB-074.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Juan Rodriguez GARCIA.
    No. 2009-K-2583.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Garcia, Juan Rodriguez; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 273150; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No 44,562-KA.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Paul E. STEWART, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0277.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Stewart Sr., Paul E.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 467-293; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1584. 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. John H. JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0279.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Jones, John H.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 062586; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1832.

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. Ronald HAWKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0280.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Hawkins, Ronald; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 403-405; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1655.

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; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    State ex rel. Jeremy D. ROBINSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0281.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Robinson, Jeremy D.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caldwell, 37th Judicial District Court Div. 0, Nos. 74661, 74666; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,255-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Raymond SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0286.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Smith, Raymond; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 475-454; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-0644.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael C. MOLINA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0287.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Molina, Michael C; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 01-5628; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No 08-WR-969.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Perry M. GRANT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0288.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Grant, Perry M.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 41,178; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01142.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Stevon ARCHIE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0291.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Archie, Stevon; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 08-04-0233; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009-KW-1632.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darrell SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0293.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Smith, Darrell; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 297865; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1818.

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 D. WASHINGTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0294.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Washington, Willlie D.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 95-F0081; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,087-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).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Byron W. RICHARDSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0296.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Richardson, Byron W.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 07-97-0816; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2027.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lori JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0328.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 11, 2011.
   In re Jackson, Lori; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 98-1161; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-1023.

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