author: GUIDRY, Justice.

text:
    In re Justice of the Peace Roger ADAMS, Ward 7, 12th District, Parish of Avoyelles, State of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-O-0121.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 10, 2011.

      Office of Special Counsel, Henry Nathan Bellamy, Special Counsel, John Eric Keeling, Assistant Special Counsel, for Applicant.
    Justice of the Peace Roger Adams, for Respondent.
    Nancy E. Rix, Commission Counsel.
   GUIDRY, Justice.

hThis matter comes before the court on the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana (hereinafter, “Commission”), pursuant to La. Const, art. V, Sect. 25(C), that Justice of the Peace Roger Adams of Ward 7, Parish of Avoyelles, State of Louisiana, be suspended without pay for 180 days, followed by a probation of two years, required to attend the Attorney General’s justice of the peace training every year until his term of probation is completed, and ordered to reimburse and pay to the Commission the sum of $532.58 in costs. For the reasons set forth below, we find Justice of the Peace Adams violated Canons 1, 2(A), and 3(A)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as Art. V, Sect. 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution. Accordingly, we find he should be suspended without pay for one year, followed by a probation period of two years. Furthermore, we find Justice of the Peace Adams must attend the Attorney General’s training every year until the term of his probation is completed, and also reimburse and pay the Commission’s costs of $532.58.

FACTS and PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Justice of the Peace Adams (hereinafter, “Adams”), who is not a lawyer, assumed his judicial office over thirteen years ago, and he has served continuously since then, save for his 15-day suspension from office without pay imposed by this court in June 2007. In re: Adams, 07-0426 (La.6/29/07), 959 So.2d 474 | ^(hereinafter, “Adams /”). Adams was sanctioned at that time for having issued arrest warrants for two individuals for a parade permit violation and having set excessively high bonds, admittedly in retaliation for the individuals’ political opposition to the mayor of the Town of Simmesport.

Less than one year from imposition of his prior discipline, Adams in April 2008 visited a local jail to perform notarial duties. During his visit, an inmate at the jail, Jessica Evans, asked Adams to sign a judgment of divorce in the matter of Jessica Evans v. Adrian C. Evans. Despite having no authority or jurisdiction to do so as a justice of the peace, Adams signed the divorce judgment given to him by Ms. Evans. In return, Adams received a $10 “notary fee.” Contrary to law, the judgment bears no case number. Moreover, prior to signing the judgment Adams did not: (1) inquire, verify, or determine whether Ms. Evans was legally entitled to a divorce under La. Civ.Code art. 103, as recited; (2) verify service of what was clearly a default judgment or otherwise inquire or properly determine that Mr. Evans was actually in default; or (3) hold any hearings of any kind.

Ms. Evans ultimately sent a copy of the divorce judgment to the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany as an attachment to a new petition for divorce. The department head for the civil division for the clerk of court, recognizing that Adams did not have jurisdiction to sign such a judgment, filed a complaint about his actions with the Office of Special Counsel (hereinafter, “Special Counsel”). The Special Counsel forwarded the complaint, along with a copy of the signed judgment, to Adams. In a written response, Adams stated, “I had no knowledge that I did not have jurisdiction in divorce matters_ I regret any inconvenience that my signing ...” may have caused.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

After completing an investigation, the Commission on May 26, 2010, filed Formal Charge 300, alleging Adams engaged in judicial misconduct by signing a ^default judgment of divorce in the Evans matter, despite having no jurisdiction to do so as a justice of the peace, and without assigning a case number or following the legal requirements for rendering a default judgment. The Commission alleged that Adams’s conduct violated Canons 1 (a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary), 2A (a judge shall respect and comply with the law), and 3(A)(1) (a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission further alleged Adams engaged in persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of La. Const, art. V, Sect. 25(C).

Joint Stipulations

Adams and the Special Counsel entered into a stipulation of facts in which Adams admitted all of the factual allegations contained in the Formal Charge. The Commission agreed to dispense with convening a hearing, and to accept the stipulated facts, subject to further questioning of Adams at a Commission meeting. | ¿Adams and the Special Counsel also entered into a stipulation of law in which Adams admitted that his actions were contrary to well-established Louisiana law and that his conduct violated Canons 1, 2(A), and 3(A)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, Sect. 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution as stated in the Formal Charge. The Commission accepted the stipulations of law after Adams’s appearance before the Commission at its meeting on October 15, 2010.

During that meeting, Adams appeared before the Commission and admitted that he has a copy of, and uses, the Justice Court Manual prepared by the Louisiana Attorney General to assist justices of the peace in the performance of their duties. He also admitted that the Justice Court Manual contains instructions regarding default judgments. However, when asked why he did not follow these instructions in the Evans case, Adams replied that he simply made a “hasty decision.” Adams testified:

... At this particular time, I am aware what I’ve done. I made a mistake. At the same time, by not being, I guess, educated enough to know things that I should and should not do by following the laws of the state, it comes to a point sometimes when you don’t know what to do and don’t do anything. But here was an observation where I had no personal gain or anything because I only received a $10 fee trying to help someone and, perhaps, without me going into details of reading and seeing exactly what it was....

|aWhen a commissioner asked whether he understood the seriousness of his actions in the Evans case, Adams responded that he did not, as illustrated by the following exchange:

Q: ... [D]o you realize that a judgment of divorce has serious civil effects on the lives of many people, at least two, the husband and the wife, and if there are any children? Do you realize that? A: No, sir, not until after the fact, until I got to reading up on it after the fact. And I know in your mind you’re thinking, well, you should have read up on this before the fact.

Adams also testified:

Mistakes is (sic) going to be made. I did not realize the severity of the mistake that was made in this particular incident by signing this judgment of divorce for this particular inmate at the time. And after realizing what I did, all I could do is ... apologize for my actions that I did, for the mistake that had happened there.... I’m deeply sorry ... if I caused anybody any hardship, because it wasn’t done intentionally to do any harm to anybody or cause anyone any harm.

Conclusions of Fact and Law

The Commission concluded that, in signing the Evans divorce judgment, Adams acted in a manner contrary to well-established law, specifically La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 4918 (requiring that a case number be assigned), La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 4921 (governing default in a justice of the peace court), and La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 4913 (governing matters over which justices of the peace have jurisdiction). Therefore, the Commission found Adams violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Louisiana Constitution as charged. Furthermore, the Commission found Adams’s actions were contrary to clear and determined law about which there is no confusion or question as to its interpretation, and such action was either an egregious legal error or part of a pattern or practice of legal | fierror, or both, causing it to rise to the level of ethical misconduct. See In re: Quirk, 97-1143 (La.12/12/97), 705 So.2d 172.

Recommendation of Discipline

The Commission recommended Adams be suspended without pay for 180 days, followed by a two-year period of probation. The Commission further recommended Adams be required to attend the Attorney Generals justice of the peace training every year until his term of probation is completed. Finally, the Commission recommended Adams be ordered to reimburse and pay to the Commission the sum of $532.58 in hard costs.

DISCUSSION

In the instant case, Adams has stipulated to the facts and that his conduct violated Canons 1, 2(A) and 3(A)(1), as well Art. V, Sect. 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution. Therefore, the sole issue presented to this court is the appropriate measure of discipline. In re: Broussard, 05-0475 (La.4/22/05), 900 So.2d 814. In deciding the appropriate sanction, we are mindful of the primary purpose of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which is to protect the public rather than simply to discipline judges. In re: Marullo, 96-2222 (La.4/8/97), 692 So.2d 1019.

Adams’s violation of the rules of this court and the laws of this state has the potential to undermine the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. As we explained in In re: Wimbish, 98-2882, p. 5 (La.4/13/99), 733 So.2d 1183, 1187:

The Canons [of the Code of Judicial Conduct] were designed to promote a standard for judicial conduct that continuously reaffirms [7the integrity of the judiciary. Judges hold a unique position of administering justice.' They symbolize the law, and, accordingly, their actions reflect favorably or unfavorably on the judicial system. For this reason, it is important that judges comply with the laws and rules governing their conduct in a manner which promotes public confidence.

In determining the appropriate sanction for a judge or judicial officer who is subject to a disciplinary action, this court considers several non-exclusive factors set forth in In re: Chaisson, 549 So.2d 259 (La.1989). We first find Adams has incurred previous discipline for misconduct, when he was suspended without pay for fifteen days for exceeding his judicial authority in a criminal matter by setting excessively high bonds for two individuals to retaliate against them for political reasons. These now multiple infractions clearly establish a pattern of either disregard or ignorance of the laws of this state. Although Adams’s misconduct in the present case did not occur in court, it did occur in connection with his official capacity. Further, no evidence suggests Adams exploited his judicial position for personal gain.

Adams has acknowledged and apologized for his wrongful acts. We believe his remorse to be sincere. However, as we explained in In re: Wilkes, 403 So.2d 35, 44 (La.1981):

| S[A] Justice of the Peace [ ] is governed by the same constitutions and laws which govern all courts and judges of this state. He is bound to apply the law as written by the legislature and construed by the various courts. That he is a layman untrained in the law does not relieve him of his responsibility to follow the rule of law, nor does it empower him to unilaterally supersede substantive law and procedure, especially where ... there is not one scintilla of evidence indicative of a good faith attempt at compliance with the law.

Adams has promised he will change his conduct in the future by seeking legal advice from the Attorney General’s Office before signing any documents about which he has questions. However, of note in this case, Adams had no qualms about signing the divorce decree presented to him, because he mistakenly thought he possessed the authority to do so. He was not a new justice of the peace at the time of his ethical misconduct; consequently, he should have known and understood the limits of his jurisdictional authority. Adams was previously suspended, and at that time he assured this court his future conduct would conform to the expectations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the laws of this state, but that did not happen. Thus, Adams’s actions placed the judiciary as a whole in a negative light because they evidenced his complete lack of familiarity with the constraints imposed by law on the exercise of his judicial authority, and with the most basic procedural requirements for rendering a default judgment. Although there was no evidence presented to the Commission as to whether anyone actually relied on the divorce judgment signed by Adams, his actions could have resulted in serious repercussions for the litigants had one of them attempted to remarry in reliance on it, and for anyone else who may have relied on the judgment without realizing it was invalid.

As the Commission recognized, two pri- or cases from this court shed light on an appropriate sanction for Adams’s misconduct. In those cases, like here, the justices of the peace failed egregiously to act in conformity with the laws pertaining to the performance of their official duties and to afford the parties before |9them their right to due process under the law. See In re: Landry, 01-0657 (La.6/29/01), 789 So.2d 1271 (seasoned justice of the peace, who characterized his actions as unintentional mistakes, was suspended without pay for six months, followed by probation, for rendering a default judgment against a defendant without proper service of process and without convening a hearing); In re: Franklin, 07-1425 (La.11/27/07), 969 So.2d 591 (justice of the peace was removed from office for failing to conduct hearings, render judgments, and communicate with the plaintiff in two collection matters, and for fabricating judgments after the fact and failing to cooperate with the Commission). In light of Adams’s pri- or discipline, and his now unrealized assurances to this court in Adams I that he would in future abide by the law of this state, we find the misconduct in instant case, while it does not rise to the level necessitating removal as occurred in Franklin, does present a more serious pattern and history of misconduct than occurred in Landry.

Protection of the public and preservation of the integrity of the judicial system are paramount considerations. As the Commission properly recognized, whether Adams can ameliorate his competence in the future is a matter of grave doubt. In short, Adams signed a document of significant legal import in haste, without reading it carefully and without making any effort to determine the legal authority for, or the legal consequences of, his actions. Like the Commission, we are troubled by the fact that Adams, though an experienced justice of the peace and the subject of prior discipline for legal error, simply did not know he lacked jurisdiction in divorce matters, even though he had attended the mandatory justice of the peace training conducted by the Attorney General’s Office many times, and was familiar with the other resources offered by the Attorney General’s Office to assist justices of the peace. As the Commission noted, though Adams initially attributed his actions to a lack of education, he ultimately admitted that he had had |inample time to learn from his own experiences as a justice of the peace. As we have explained, a non-lawyer justice of the peace is bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct, and a lack of education is not a sufficient justification for not following the law. In re: Landry, 01-0657, p. 11, 789 So.2d at 1278. At a minimum, Adams, having over thirteen years of experience, should have known of the limits of his jurisdictional authority. Finally, of most concern is the fact that, when he signed the divorce judgment in April 2008, he had been disciplined by this court less than a year earlier for exceeding his authority by failing to follow the law in another matter.

Adams’s lack of familiarity with even the most basic rules pertaining to the exercise of his authority in a civil matter constitutes serious misconduct. As the Commission observed, it is equally as important to the public and to the integrity of the judicial system that a justice of the peace know and abide by the jurisdictional restrictions imposed by law upon the exercise of his official duties, as it is for him to follow the law in those areas in which he is authorized to act. The Commission was not overly confident that Adams could in the future conform his conduct to the rules of this court and the laws of this state. We share that concern. Accordingly, we accept the Commission’s recommendation that Adams be suspended from office without pay followed by a two-year period of probation; however, we believe a suspension of one year without pay, followed by two years of probation, would better protect the public and preserve the integrity of the judicial system, as well as impress upon Adams that competence in the performance of his legal duties is vital in that regard.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the Judiciary Commission, and considering the record filed herein, we conclude Justice of the Peace Roger Adams’s conduct violated Canons 1, 2(A), and 3(A)(1) of the Code of |n Judicial Conduct, subjecting him to discipline pursuant to Art. V, Sect. 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution. Accordingly, it is ordered that Justice of the Peace Adams be suspended without pay for one year, followed by a two-year period of probation. It is further ordered that Justice of the Peace Adams attend the Attorney Generals justice of the peace training every year until his term of probation is completed, and reimburse and pay to the Commission the sum of $532.58 in hard costs.

       Retired Judge Robert Klees sitting ad hoc, for Justice Jeannette T. Knoll, recused.

      .Those Canons provide in relevant part as follows:
      Canon 1: An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and shall personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective. As a necessary corollary, the judge must be protected in the exercise of judicial independence.
      Canon 2(A): A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
      Canon 3(A)(1):. A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.

      . La. Const, art. V, Sect. 25(C) provides in relevant part:
      On recommendation of the judiciary commission, the supreme court may censure, suspend with or without salary, remove from office, or retire involuntarily a judge for willful misconduct relating to his official duty, willful and persistent failure to perform his duty, persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, conduct while in office which would constitute a felony, or conviction of a felony.

      . Although Adams and the Special Counsel stipulated to the facts and legal conclusions, they were unable to agree upon a recommended penalty. The Special Counsel recommended to the Commission that Adams be suspended from judicial office without pay for 180 days; Adams made no recommendation of his own. Adams has not filed any pleadings before this court in the present matter.

      . Adams regularly attends the Louisiana Attorney General's training conference for justices of the peace, though he suggested before the Commission that the “education of the conference is just not in detail enough.” Adams indicated he understands that he may contact the Attorney General’s Office for legal advice and guidance regarding questions that come up in the course of his work as a justice of the peace. In the Evans case, however, Adams made no inquiry to the Attorney General’s Office because he did not "think that there was anything wrong” with signing the divorce judgment.

      . When Adams was questioned by the Commission about his earlier ethical misconduct that gave rise to his suspension in Adams I, he indicated he had made a hasty decision in that instance also.

      . La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 4913(B)(4) provides that a justice of the peace court "has no jurisdiction in ... [a] claim for annulment of marriage, separation from bed and board, divorce, separation of property, or alimony.”

      . Adams stipulated in Adams I that he failed to follow the law regarding the setting of two bail bonds. As explained in Quirk, "... a pattern of repeated legal error (although not necessarily the same error) over a period of time can constitute judicial misconduct, regardless of whether the errors were made in bad faith or were egregious in nature.”

      . Although Adams currently attends the training conference biannually, as required by law, the Commission believed it was important for him to receive additional training by attending the conference every year during his probation.

      . In Chaisson, this court, citing Matter of Deming, 108 Wash.2d 82, 736 P.2d 639, 659 (1987), set forth a non-exclusive list of factors a court may consider in imposing discipline on a judge:
      (a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge’s official capacity or in his private life; (e) whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred; (f) whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify his conduct; (g) the length of service on the bench; (h) whether there have been prior complaints about this judge; (i) the effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of and respect for the judiciary; and (j) the extent to which the judge exploited his position to satisfy his personal desires.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: JOHNSON, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re KATRINA CANAL BREACHES LITIGATION.
    No. 2010-CQ-1823.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 10, 2011.

      James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, Sallie Jones Sanders, James Trey Phillips, Stacie Lambert deBlieux, Stuart Kyle Duncan, for Plaintiffs.
    Adams & Reese, LLP, Deborah Bila Rouen, Christopher Albert DAmour, Andrea Leigh Fannin, New Orleans, LA, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Matthew Aaron Woolf, New Orleans, LA, Barrasso, Usdin, Kup-perman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC, Henry Minor Pipes, III, Stephen Lawrence Miles, Steven William Usdin, Judy Y. Bar-rasso, New Orleans, LA, Bernard, Cassisa, Elliott & Davis, Howard Bruce Kaplan, Metairie, LA, Christovich & Kearney, John Tilghman Culotta, Metairie, LA, Matthew Joseph Lindsay, Crull, Castaing & Lilly, Edward John Lilly, New Orleans, LA, DeRouen Law Firm, Patrick Dominie DeRouen, New Orleans, LA, Degan, Blanchard & Nash, APLC, Sidney Wallis Degan, III, Julia A. Dietz, New Orleans, LA, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Pfister & Weinstock, C. Michael Pfíster, Jr., Lawrence J. Duplass, Metairie, LA, Kelly Cambre Bogart, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith, APLC, Richard Edward King, New Orleans, LA, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Robert Irwin Siegel, New Orleans, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP, William Glenn Burns, Lauren Elizabeth Brisbi, Sean Patrick Mount, Dominie J. Ovella, John Elliott Unsworth, Jr., New Orleans, LA, Huval, Veazey, Felder, Aertker & Renegar, LLC, Thomas Hebert Huval, Covington, LA, Johnson, Johnson, Barrios & Yacoubian, Neal John Favret, Alan John Yacoubian, Genevieve Kathleen Jacques, Jones Fussell, LLP, John R. Walker, Keogh, Cox & Wilson, LTD., John Powers Wolff, III, Krebs, Farley & Pelleteri, PLLC, Amy S. Malish, Maura Zivalich Pelleteri, Kristen Hipke Schorp, New Orleans, LA, Larzelere Picou Wells Simpson Lonero, LLC, Jay Michael Lone-ro, Christopher Raymond Pennison, Angie L. Areeneaux, Metairie, LA, Lobman, Car-nahan, Batt, Angelle & Nader, Daniel Michael Redmann, New Orleans, LA, Lugen-buhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, Ralph Shelton Hubbard, III, Seth Andrew Schmeeckle, Anne Elizabeth Briard, Baton Rouge, LA, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, Gerard Evans Wimberly, Jr., Baton Rouge, LA, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Nora Bolling Bilbro, Jacqueline M. Brettner, Neil Charles Abramson, Marshall M. Red-mon, Harry Allan Rosenberg, H. Alston Johnson, III, New Orleans, LA, Plauche Maselli Parkerson, LLP, Andrew L. Plauche^ Jr., James K. Ordeneaux, New Orleans, LA, Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, LLP, Charles Louis Chassaignac, IV, Baton Rouge, LA, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Milton Davis Ready, Thomas Robert Blum, New Orleans, LA, Stone Pigman Walther Whitmann, L.L.C., Mary L. Dumestre, Stephen G. Bullock, Wayne Joseph Lee, Lauren Godshall, New Orleans, LA, Talley, Anthony, Hughes & Knight, LLC, Rachel Patton Catalanotto, New Orleans, LA, The Law Offices of Gordon P. Serou, Jr., L.L.C., Gordon Paul Serou, Jr., Walter D. Wilson, for Defendants.
   JOHNSON, Justice.

| ,We accepted the certified question presented to this Court by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 613 F.3d 504 (5th Cir.2010). The question presented is “Does an anti-assignment clause in a homeowner’s insurance policy, which by its plain terms purports to bar any assignment of the policy or an interest therein without the insurer’s consent, bar an insured’s post-loss assignment of the insured’s claims under the policy when such an assignment transfers contractual obligations, not just the right to money due?”

For the reasons set forth below, we answer the question as follows: There is no public policy in Louisiana which precludes an anti-assignment clause from applying to post-loss assignments. However, the language of the anti-assignment clause must clearly and unambiguously express that it applies to post-loss assignments, and thus it must be evaluated on a policy by policy basis.

| {¡FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

To provide relief in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Congress appropriated federal funds, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), to affected states. Louisiana distributed some of those funds via the “Road Home” program, which provided grants of up to $150,000 to Louisiana homeowners to repair uninsured or under-insured property damage. Purporting to fulfill an obligation under federal law to “prevent recipients from receiving any duplication of benefits,” the State required more than 150,000 Road Home grant recipients to execute a “Limited Subrogation/Assignment Agreement.” It stated, in pertinent part:

I/we hereby assign to the State of Louisiana ... to the extent of the grant proceeds awarded or to be awarded to me under the [Road Home] Program, all of my/our claims and future rights to reimbursement and all payments hereafter received or to be received by me/ us: (a) under any policy of casualty or property damage insurance or flood insurance on the residence, excluding contents (“Residence”) described in my/application for Homeowner’s Assistance under the Program (“Policies”): (b) from FEMA, Small Business Administration, and any other federal agency, arising out of physical damage to the Residence caused by Hurricane Katrina and/or Hurricane Rita.

According to the State, the Road Home program created perverse incentives for insurance companies and insured homeowners: some insurers inadequately adjusted and paid grant-eligible homeowners’ claims, and some grant-eligible homeowners had little motivation to file claims or challenge low insurance ^settlements. Consequently, Road Home applications and grant amounts drastically increased, creating a one billion dollar projected shortfall in the program.

To remedy this situation, and pursuant to the assignment agreements, the State filed suit against more than two hundred insurance companies-allegedly all of the insurers who wrote property insurance in Louisiana at the time of the Hurricanes-in state court in Orleans Parish. The State sought to recover the funds expended and anticipated to be expended under the Road Home program and a declaration of the insurers’ duties under the “all risk” policies they had issued to Road Home applicants.

The Defendants successfully removed the case to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act. According to the Defendants, the insurance industry has paid more than forty billion dollars to homeowners as a result of losses from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The insurers argue that the State’s suit is an attempt to obtain yet more money from the insurers, even in situations where the homeowner was satisfied with the amount paid, had already filed a lawsuit against the insurer, or had reached a settlement agreement. Moreover, the insurers contend the State brought suit without investigating whether the Defendants had actually failed to make sufficient payment on individual homeowners’ claims.

The Defendants subsequently filed a Federal Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in the federal district court, arguing in part that the State’s claims failed as a matter of law because anti-assignment clauses in the homeowners’ policies invalidated the purported assignments to the State.

Making an Erie guess, the federal district court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the contractual anti-assignment provisions did not bar post-loss assignments under Louisiana law. The federal district court also denied the LDefendants’ motion for reconsideration, but certified that order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). An appeal to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals followed. Because “interpretation of the policy provisions at issue is a matter of Louisiana law that will determine the outcome of this case and because there are no clear controlling precedents in the decisions of the Louisiana Supreme Court,” the Fifth Circuit invoked the certification privilege.

DISCUSSION

Parties’ Contentions

The insurers contend the post-loss assignments to the State are invalid as a matter of law. They argue the anti-assignment clauses in the policies are enforceable based on Louisiana Civil Code article 2653, which provides that a right cannot be assigned when the contract from which that right arises prohibits assignment of the right. The insurers note the anti-assignment clauses in the insurance contracts are broadly worded and contain no exception for post-loss assignments.

Additionally, the insurers argue this Court should not create a judicial exception to Article 2653 as a matter of public policy. The legislature, not the courts, creates public policy and thus only the legislature can create an exception to La. C.C. art. 2658. Moreover, the insurance industry is highly regulated, and the Commissioner has never imposed any restrictions on anti-assignment clauses or required that they contain exceptions for post-loss assignments.

Furthermore, even if this Court were to consider public policy, it favors enforcement of the anti-assignment clauses under the circumstances of this case. TheRRoad Home assignments are not merely assignments of perfected or liquidated claims for money due. There is a difference between a liquidated claim for policy proceeds, where an insurer simply has to pay an undisputed amount of money, and an un-liquidated claim for additional damage to the property, which has not yet been proven. This distinction is critical because the insured must comply with various obligations under a property insurance policy in order to assert a claim, and the insured’s duties cannot be transferred to the State. To allow the assignments in this case results in increased risk to the insurers because they would be compelled to litigate thousands of previously closed homeowners’ insurance claims where the State has very limited, if any, access to the relevant loss information to which the insurers are contractually entitled. The insurers contend they would be further prejudiced because, in many instances, they would be required to defend two separate lawsuits seeking to recover the same insurance claim-one filed by the policy holder and the current suit filed by the State-thus imposing additional costs and possibly leading to inconsistent results. The insurers would be compelled to litigate against the State, with which they did not contract and with which they never anticipated having to litigate. And, in many cases, the property damage was repaired, or the home torn down, long ago which prejudices the insurers’ ability to adequately investigate the State’s new claims and substantially increases the insurers’ administrative costs and legal fees.

By contrast, the State argues Article 2653 is not determinative. That article merely bars assignment of a right if the contract prohibits assignment of that right. These insurance contracts do not bar assignments post-loss. These contracts generally state that “assignment of the policy” is not valid unless the insurer consents, or that “no interest in the policy” can be transferred without consent. Post-loss assignments | fiof payment rights do not qualify as “assignment of a policy” or as a transferred “interest in a policy,” and therefore fall outside of an anti-assignment clause. Virtually every jurisdiction strictly interprets such anti-assignment clauses as not including an assignment of payment rights after a loss occurs. Such post-loss assignments merely transfer an accrued right to payments and do nothing to alter the risk originally assumed by the insurance company. The prevailing national jurisprudence makes no distinction between liquidated and unliquidated claims. This interpretation comports with the Civil Code regarding contract interpretation because Article 2047 provides that contractual terms must be given their generally prevailing meaning. The State also argues this Court does not have to create a public policy exception to La. C.C. art. 2653. If this Court follows the prevailing national rule, the Road Home assignments simply fall outside the anti-assignment clauses in the homeowners’ property insurance policies.

Further, the State argues this Court’s answer to the certified question should not prematurely address any purported defenses to the State’s claims. The assignments give the State the right to seek payments, but the insurers aré still entitled to raise valid defenses to the payment of claims. The Road Home assignments simply place the State in the insureds’ shoes with a limited right to seek payments duplicative of Road Home disbursements. The assignments do not facially confer additional contractual duties to the State.

Law and Analysis

Generally, rights arising from a contract are assignable unless the law, the terms of the contract, or the nature of the contract preclude such assignment. La. C.C. 17art. 1984. Louisiana Civil Code article 2642 further provides that all rights may be assigned, except those pertaining to strictly personal obligations. Central to the issue involved in this case is Civil Code article 2653, which provides, in pertinent part: “A right cannot be assigned when the contract from which it arises prohibits the assignment of that right.” (Emphasis added) The language of Article 2653 is broad. It does not exclude insurance contracts, nor does the Article expressly exclude post-loss assignments. Thus, on its face, Article 2653 appears to apply to all assignments. As noted by the Fifth Circuit, the insurers contend Article 2653 is “the beginning and the end of the matter.” 613 F.3d at 509. However, pointing out that insurance contract provisions cannot conflict with statutory law or public policy, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the State that “Article 2653 begs the question presented in this case: whether Louisiana courts would interpret the anti-assignment clauses in these homeowner’s insurance policies as prohibiting post-loss assignments.” Id. at 510. In certifying the question to this Court, the Fifth Circuit stated the specific issue before it as “whether the Louisiana Supreme Court would hold that a contractual prohibition on post-loss assignments violates public policy.” Id. We conclude there is no public policy in Louisiana to prevent parties from contractually prohibiting post-loss assignments.

This Court has never addressed public policy considerations relative to post-loss assignments. The most relevant appellate case on the issue is Geddes & Moss Undertaking & Embalming Co. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 167 So. 209 (La.App.Orl.1936). In that case, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“Metropolitan”) issued policies of insurance on the .life of Silas The-rell. Pauline Rhinehart, the daughter of the insured, was designated as beneficiary. After Mr. Therell died, Ms. Rhinehart ^assigned her rights to Geddes & Moss Undertaking & Embalming Co. (“Ged-des”). Subsequently, Geddes filed suit against Metropolitan, seeking to recover on the policy. Metropolitan filed an exception of no cause of action, arguing the assignment to Geddes was invalid because of a policy prohibition against assignment of “any benefits” due under the policy. The trial court maintained the exception of no cause of action, and Metropolitan appealed. The court of appeal reversed. After reviewing jurisprudence from other states, the court concluded the weight of authority indicated an assignment after a loss was not prohibited. The court explained:

It appears to us, however, that a distinction is to be made between the assignment of a policy before and after loss has accrued thereon, and that the majority opinion sustains the view that such stipulations in policies do not prevent assignment after the loss has occurred.
“General stipulations in policies, prohibiting assignment thereof, except with the insurer’s consent, or upon giving some notice, on like conditions, have universally been held to apply only to assignments before loss, and, accordingly, noncompliance or non-conformity therewith does not prevent an assignment, after loss, of the claim or interest of the insured in the insurance money then due in respect to the loss.” Couch on Insurance, vol. 6, p. 5276, § 1459.
“An assignment of the policy after loss is in effect no more than an assignment of a claim against the company, and is valid though the policy expressly provides against an assignment either before or after loss. Such a stipulation, as applied to an assignment after loss, is void as against public policy.” Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, vol. 7, p. 6310. “A provision in a policy against assignment does not apply to assignment after loss, and a specific provision against such an assignment is null and void, as inconsistent with the covenant of indemnity and contrary to public policy.” Ruling Case Law, verbo “Insurance,” vol. 14, p. 182.
“It is further contended that the policy is void because of a provision therein that it shall be void ‘If it be assigned’ without the indorsement of the secretary of the insurer. Such provision is not applicable in the instant case, because the assignment here was not of the policy before 19the death of the insured, but of the cause of action accruing thereon after loss. 14 R.C.L. 1004. An assignment of a policy, and the right to recover upon it, after maturity, is valid, regardless of the conditions of the policy. Kerr on Insurance, 688.” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Lanigan, 74 Colo. 386, 222 P. 402, 403.

Geddes, 167 So. at 210 (Emphasis added).

While Geddes was decided prior to the enactment of Article 2653, Geddes correctly expresses the prevailing American rule distinguishing between pre-loss and post-loss assignments. In differentiating between the two, courts reason that allowing an insured to assign the right to coverage (pre-loss) would force the insurer to protect an insured with whom it had not contracted-an insured who might present a greater level of risk than the policyholder. However, allowing an insured to assign its right to the proceeds of an insurance policy (post-loss) does not modify the insurer’s risk. The insurer’s obligations are fixed at the time the loss occurs, and the insurer is obligated to cover the loss agreed to under the terms of the policy. This obligation is not altered when the claimant is not the party who was originally insured. After the loss, the anti-assignment clause serves only to limit the free assignability of claims, which is not favored by the law, and such restrictions on an insured’s right to assign its proceeds are generally rendered void. See Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, 3 Couch on Insurance 3d, § 35:7 (2005); Richard A. Lord, 29 Willi-ston on Contracts § 74:22 (4th ed.); 44 Am Jur.2d Insurance § 787.

Since Article 2653 was enacted, the only Louisiana appellate decision relative to this issue is R.L. Lucien Tile Co. v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 08-1190 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/11/09), 8 So.3d 753. In that case, R.L. Lucien Tile Company, Inc. (“Lucien Tile”) purchased property from Joshua and Sandy Cage, by quitclaim deed, for the sum of $100. Lucien Tile did not refinance or assume the Cages’ mortgage. Instead, Lucien Tile paid the Cages’ monthly note on the existing mortgage with EMC Mortgage Corporation (“EMC”). At all relevant times, EMC held a mortgage on the insured property, and American Security Insurance Company (“ASIC”) maintained the insurance policy for damages caused by wind and rain. The named insured under this policy was EMC, with the Cages as additional insureds.

After Hurricane Katrina, ASIC received notice that the property sustained damage. The notice identified the claimant as Sandy Cage, the named insured as EMC, and the additional insureds as Joshua and Sandy Cage. ASIC paid policy benefits to EMC and the Cages. Subsequently, Lucien Tile filed a petition for damages against ASIC, claiming rights to policy benefits. Thereafter, ASIC moved for summary judgment, arguing Lucien Tile was neither an insured nor additional insured under the policy. ASIC further argued the policy contained an anti-assignment clause, and Lucien Tile had no valid assignment of the Cages’ rights against ASIC. Consequently, Lucien Tile had no standing to bring the action.

The trial court granted ASIC’s motion for summary judgment. Lucien Tile appealed, and the court of appeal affirmed. The court noted two documents relied on by Lucien Tile: the November 2, 2005, document entitled, “ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER OF ALL RIGHTS AND CLAIMS,” which was signed by the Cages; and the March 31, 2008, document styled “Supplement to our November 2, 2005 Assignment and Transfer of All Rights and Claims,” which stated “in addition to and included under” the previous assignment, are “all claims against anyone arising out of the ownership of or related to our previous ownership of 8833 Green InStreet.” However, the court of appeal found the insurance policy “clearly and unambiguously prohibits the insured from assigning the policy without ASIC’s written consent. Therefore, absent a valid assignment of rights to which the insurer, ASIC, consented, Lucien Tile has no standing to sue.” Lucien Tile, 8 So.3d at 756-57 (Emphasis added).

Although Lucien Tile involved a post-loss assignment of claims under an insurance policy, it provides us with no guidance because it does not address the distinction between pre-loss and post-loss assignments, nor does it address the application of Article 2653.

The Louisiana Civil Code does not place limits on parties’ contractual right to prohibit the assignment of insurance proceeds. In fact, Article 2653 contemplates that the parties to a contract may contract to limit assignability. Thus, while the Louisiana legislature has clearly indicated an intent to allow parties freedom to assign contractual rights, by enacting La. C.C. art. 2653 it has also clearly indicated an intent to allow parties freedom to contractually prohibit assignment of rights. We recognize the vast amount of national jurisprudence distinguishing between pre-loss and post-loss assignments and rejecting restrictions on post-loss assignments, however we find no public policy in Louisiana favoring free assign-ability of claims over freedom of contract. This court has long recognized that the freedom to contract is an important public policy. See Barrera v. Ciolino, 92-2844 (La.5/5/94), 636 So.2d 218, 223. We have explained:

[Pjarties are free to contract for any object that is lawful, possible, and determined or determinable. La. C.C. art. 1971. “Freedom of contract” signifies that parties to an agreement have the right and power to construct their own bargains. In a free enterprise system, parties are free to contract except for those instances where the government places restrictions for reasons of public policy. The state may legitimately restrict the parties’ right to contract if the proposed bargain is found to have some deleterious effect on the public or to contravene some other 112matter of public policy.

Louisiana Smoked Products, Inc. v. Savoie’s Sausage and Food Products, Inc., 96-1716 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 1373,1380-81.

Nothing in the facts of this case support a finding that the non-assignment clauses contained in the policies have a deleterious effect on the public or that they violate public policy. Further, public policy determinations are better suited to the legislative, rather than the judicial forum. See Marcus v. Hanover Ins. Co., Inc., 1998-2040 (La.6/4/99), 740 So.2d 603; State v. Edwards, 2000-1246 (La.6/1/01), 787 So.2d 981. Thus, if any exception to Article 2653 should be created relative to post-loss assignments, it is up to the legislature to create such an exception.

Although we hold that parties may contract to prohibit post-loss assignments, we also hold the contract language must clearly and unambiguously express that the non-assignment clause applies to post-loss assignments. An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed by using the general rules of interpretation of contracts in the Civil Code. Louisiana Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., 630 So.2d 759, 763 (La.1994); Lewis v. Hamilton, 94-2204 (La.4/10/95), 652 So.2d 1327, 1329. Insurers are entitled to limit their liability and to impose reasonable conditions upon the policy obligations absent a conflict with statutory provisions or public policy. Louisiana Ins. Guaranty Assn., 630 So.2d at 763. However, because insurance policies are adhesionary in nature, any contradiction or ambiguity in the contract must be strictly construed against the insurer, the party who drafted the policy. La. C.C. art. 2056; Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Assn., 630 So.2d at 764; Lewis, 652 So.2d at 1330.

| ^Insurance is a highly regulated industry, and insurers are well aware of the distinction between pre-loss and post-loss assignments. Post-loss assignment of claims arising under the policy is not equivalent to the assignment of the policy itself, or an interest in the policy. Given the categorical difference, we find it incumbent on insurers to include clear and unambiguous language in their policies. We do not find it necessary to formulate a test consisting of specific terms or words, however the insurer must include language making it clear and explicit that post-loss assignments are prohibited under the policy-

We note the varying language in the insurance policies regarding assignment of rights, and further note that the hundreds of relevant polices are included in the record. However, we decline to review the language of each on a policy-by-policy basis, and instead leave that task to the federal district court on the merits.

CONCLUSION

There is no public policy in Louisiana which precludes an anti-assignment clause from applying to post-loss assignments. However, the language of the anti-assignment clause must clearly and unambiguously express that it applies to post-loss assignments. Thus, it is necessary for the federal district court to evaluate the relevant anti-assignment clauses on a policy-by-policy basis to determine whether the language is sufficient to prohibit post-loss assignments.

DECREE

We answer the certified question as set forth in this opinion. Pursuant to Rule XII, Supreme Court of Louisiana, the judgment rendered by this Court upon the question certified shall be sent by the Clerk of this Court under its seal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and to the parties.

CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED.

      . In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 2010-1823 (La.10/29/10), 51 So.3d 1.

      . The Fifth Circuit provided: "We disclaim any intent that the Louisiana Supreme Court confine its reply to the precise form or scope of the legal questions certified.” 613 F.3d at 512.

      . We set out the facts primarily as delineated by the United States Fifth Circuit. 613 F.3d at 507-09.

      . According to the State, the guidelines for administering Road Home funds were set forth by the Louisiana Recovery Authority ("LRA”) in its 2006 Road Home Housing Programs Action Plan Amendment for Disaster Recovery Funds ("action plan”). That plan contains the requirement that fund recipients agree to subrogate claims for unpaid and outstanding insurance claims back to the Program. The LRA was granted authority to develop the action plan by the legislature in the 2006 Legislative session. Act No. 5, 2006 1st Extraordinary Sess. (La.2006); S.C.R. 63, 2006 Reg. Sess. (La.2006). Such plan was required to, and did, obtain approval by the governor, the legislature, and the HUD.

      . Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).

      . La. C.C. art. 2653 provides: "A right cannot be assigned when the contract from which it arises prohibits the assignment of that right. Such a prohibition has no effect against an assignee who has no knowledge of its existence.”

      . La. C.C. art. 2047 provides: The words of a contract must be given their generally prevailing meaning. Words of art and technical terms must be given their technical meaning when the contract involves a technical matter.

      . This article was enacted by Acts 1993, No. 841, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1995.

      . See, e.g., Conrad Brothers v. John Deere Ins. Co., 640 N.W.2d 231, 237 (Iowa 2001) (noting the weight of authority supporting the same rule and citing to cases from Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Texas, North Carolina, Delaware, Missouri, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington, and West Virginia); Antal’s Restaurant, Inc. v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 680 A.2d 1386, 1388 (D.C.1996) (citing cases from Alabama, Maine, Wisconsin, California, Georgia, Illinois and New York).

      . La. C.C. art. 2056 provides: In case of doubt that cannot be otherwise resolved, a provision in a contract must be interpreted against the party who furnished its text. A contract executed in a standard form of one party must be interpreted, in case of doubt, in favor of the other party.


text:
    In re Richard J. GUIDRY.
    No. 2011-OB-1005.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 21, 2011.
   ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) has filed formal charges against respondent alleging that he converted client and third-party funds. Respondent now seeks to permanently resign from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The ODC has concurred in respondent’s petition.

Having considered the Petition for Permanent Resignation from the Practice of Law filed by Richard J. Guidry, Louisiana Bar Roll number 18927, and the concurrence thereto filed by the ODC,

IT IS ORDERED that the request of Richard J. Guidry for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline be and is hereby granted, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20.1 and Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard J. Guidry shall be permanently prohibited from practicing law in Louisiana or in any other jurisdiction in which he is admitted to the practice of law; shall be permanently prohibited from seeking readmission to the practice of law in this state or in any other jurisdiction in which he is admitted; and shall be permanently prohibited from seeking admission to the practice of law in any jurisdiction.

/s/ Bernette J. Johnson /s/ Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    In re Mark G. MURPHEY.
    No. 2011-OB-0837.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 24, 2011.
   ORDER

Considering the April 25, 2011 letter submitted to the court by Mark G. Mur-phey, advising that he wishes to voluntarily withdraw from the practice of law, and construing the letter as a petition for voluntary resignation from the practice of law,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition be and hereby is denied. However, petitioner may re-file his petition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XVIII, § 5.

/s/ Jeffrey P. Victory /s/ Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    In the Matter of the SUCCESSION of Bernice Mae DAVID.
    No. 2011-C-0501.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 25, 2011.
   In re David, Donald Ray; —Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 6652; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA1316.

Denied.


text:
    Aaron Taylor and Betty TAYLOR v. Quinn LEBLANC, Turner Industries Group, Ace American Insurance Company, and State Farm Insurance Company.
    No. 2011-CC-0662.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 25, 2011.
   In re Ace American Insurance Company; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 66133; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-C-39.

Denied.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana In the Interest of B.M. and P.M.
    No. 2011-CJ-0656.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 25, 2011.
   In re Johnson, Jacqueline; Johnson, Ronnie; —Other(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. I, No. J-11906; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0288.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Errol FALCON, Jr.
    No. 2011-KK-0625.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 25, 2011.
   In re Falcon Jr., Errol; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 09-CR-722; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-K-29.

Denied.


text:
    Tony RACHAL v. Cynthia WHITE, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-0673.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 6, 2011.
   In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; White, Cynthia et al.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2010-5036-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01544.

Denied.


text:
    Eddy OLIVER, Oscarlene Nixon and Mildred Goodwin, et al. v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-0906.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 05-12244; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0436.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of ANR PIPELINE COMPANY.
    No. 2011-CC-0997.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2011.
   In re Southern Natural Gas Company; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 100022; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0783.

Stay denied; writ denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant motion to reduce costs for appeal.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald SEWELL.
    No. 2011-KD-0959.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 504-936; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0637.

Denied.


text:
    Ferdinand TRUXILLO, Jr. v. Albert BOSSIER, as an Executive Officer of Avondale Industries, Inc., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-1020.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2011.
   In re Truxillo Jr., Ferdinand; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2010-10951; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0651.

Denied.


text:
    Byard EDWARDS, Jr. v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2011-CC-0991.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2011.
   In re Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2007-0000750; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0580.

Stay denied; writ denied.

VICTORY, KNOLL and GUIDRY, JJ„ would grant.


text:
    James MERCER v. NABORS DRILLING USA, LP.
    No. 2011-C-0591.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Nabors Drilling USA LP; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 2, No. 09-07201; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1092.

Granted and remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration in light of City of DeQuincy v. Henry, 10-0070 (La.3/15/11), 62 So.3d 43.


text:
    Michael and Christine DAUZAT v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
    No. 2011-CC-0723.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Department of Transportation and Development; State of Louisiana; —Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avo-yelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2005-7740; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01422.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, Section 5(d). Motion to dismiss denied as moot.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darrel HUDSON, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1477.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Hudson Jr., Darrel; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 14,234, 14,235, 14,239; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0224.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael J. DRIGHT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2601.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Dright, Michael J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 370-075; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1363.

Denied.

KNOLL and WEIMÉR, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David SANTOS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1121.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Santos, David; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 466-002; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-480.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Francis LONCAR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1160.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Loncar, Francis; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 05-0837; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01415.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tonka HAYNES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1159.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Haynes, Tonka; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 97-2095; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-1002.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Willie ROGERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1148.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Rogers, Willie; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 35-06; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-158.

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. David JACOBSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1147.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Jacobson, David; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 10-134; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00350.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael RICHARDSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1143.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Richardson, Michael; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 397655-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2332.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyrone LOMAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1138.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Lomas, Tyrone; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 9681; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0046.

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. Jason C. WALSTRUM v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1137.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Walstrum, Jason C; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 452818; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 18 94.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Francis HOTARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1131.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Hotard, Francis; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 06-381; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-123.

Denied.


text:
    Dewayne Wesley WRIGHT v. WILLIS-KNIGHTON MEDICAL CENTER, et al.
    No. 2011-C-0627.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Wright, Dewayne Wesley; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 447,182; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,810-CW.

Writ granted. Based on our de novo review, we conclude there is a disputed issue as to whether coverage exits under the policy issued by Continental Casualty Company to Dr. Tedesco. For this reason, we conclude the court of appeal erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer. See La.C.C.P. art. 966(B). Accordingly, the court of appeal ruling is reversed, and the trial court’s judgment denying the motion for summary judgment is reinstated. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Chrishon M. ARCHIELD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1146.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Archield, Chrishon M.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. CR598-08; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1116.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bryan GUILBEAU.
    No. 2011-K-0089.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Guilbeau, Bryan; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 5293-08; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-511.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of I.P.
    No. 2011-CK-0066.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, Nos. 2010-048-02-DC-C, 2009-313-02-DQ B; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0882.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Giles McGHEE.
    No. 2011-KO-0062.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re McGhee, Giles; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 149167-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-583.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joshua THOMAS.
    No. 2010-KO-2752.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Thomas, Joshua; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 08-2008; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KA-220.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darrin ROBINSON.
    No. 2010-KO-1549.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Robinson, Darrin; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 07-CR-415; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KA 0820 R.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Henry HICKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1182.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Hickson, Henry; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 16689-95; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01522.

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. Michael John SOPCZAK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1181.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Sopczak, Michael John; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 18997; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 010 KW 0149.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Randy Ray CARSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1080.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Carson, Randy Ray; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 433,690; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA1577.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph Thomas SAVOIE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1178.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Savoie, Joseph Thomas; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 98-CR-189632; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00015.

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(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyrone JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1175.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Jackson, Tyrone; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/o Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 01-5916; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-WR-582.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Allen SNYDER.
    No. 2011-KK-0464.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Snyder, Allen; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 95-5114; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-K-23.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dominic ROBINSON.
    No. 2011-KK-0452.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Robinson, Dominic; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 370,994; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2116.

Denied.


text:
    Lillian MIRE, Wayne Mire and Suzie O’Keeffe, Individually and on Behalf of their Deceased Spouse and Father, Louis Joseph Mire v. REGENCY PLACE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER.
    No. 2011-CC-0439.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Regency Place Nursing & Rehabilitation Center; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 589,485; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1625.

Denied.

JOHNSON, VICTORY and KNOLL, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Lillian MIRE, Wayne Mire and Suzie O’Keeffe, Individually and on Behalf of their Deceased Spouse and Father, Louis Joseph Mire v. REGENCY PLACE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER.
    No. 2011-CC-0435.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Mire, Lillian et al.; Mire, Wayne; Okeeffe, Suzie; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 589,485; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1625.

Denied.

JOHNSON, VICTORY and KNOLL, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Miriam Stagner UPCHURCH, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.
    No. 2011-C-0363.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Travelers Property Cas. Co. of America; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 510,794-B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,761-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Miriam Stagner UPCHURCH, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, through the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.
    No. 2011-C-0362.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company; Protection Services, Inc.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 510,794-B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,761-CA.

Denied.


text:
    In the Matter of the MASHBURN MARITAL TRUST.
    No. 2011-C-0177.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Mashburn, Don; Mashburn, Joseph P.; Mashburn, Joseph Patón “Pat”; Mashburn, Richard Anthony; —Other(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 2001-003363, 71,685; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0278.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. David Lee KESSLER.
    No. 2011-KO-0113.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Kessler, David Lee; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 177,287; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-863-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John MORGAN.
    No. 2011-KO-0111.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Morgan, John; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 478-874; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0044.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Delloyd RAYFIELD.
    No. 2011-KO-0106.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Rayfield, Delloyd; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 473-538; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0421.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Marcus JACKSON.
    No. 2011-KK-0692.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 492-950; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1774.

Denied.


text:
    Kim SAACKS v. TARGET CORPORATION d/b/a Target Store T-1449 and Richards Clearview, L.L.C. d/b/a Clearview Shopping Center.
    No. 2011-C-0688.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Saacks, Kim; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 671-298; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-CA-819.

Denied.


text:
    DILLARD UNIVERSITY v. Robert GRAVOIS and Craig Webre, in his Capacity as Ex-Officio Tax Collector for the Parish of Lafourche.
    No. 2011-CC-0681.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Gravois, Robert et al.; Webre, Craig; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 101860; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1951.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    Julia NICHOLSON v. HORSESHOE ENTERTAINMENT, Louisiana Partnership.
    No. 2011-C-0679.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Nicholson, Julia; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 117,087-F; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-081-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Lyndon G. DOYLE, Et al. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2011-C-0677.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Doyle, Charlotte; Doyle, Lyndon G. et al.; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2009-0179-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1020.

Denied.


text:
    Scott THOMPSON v. Susan MOLINARI.
    No. 2011-CP-0646.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Thompson, Scott; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 72107; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-805.

Denied.


text:
    MOORE, THOMPSON, LEE & BROYLES v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Progressive Security Insurance Company, and Amy Porche, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Daughter, Emily Brossett.
    No. 2011-CC-0620.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Brossett, Emily; Porche, Amy; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 580,171; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2091.

Denied.


text:
    MOORE, THOMPSON, LEE & BROYLES v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Progressive Security Insurance Company, and Amy Porche, Individually and On Behalf of Her Minor Daughter, Emily Brossett.
    No. 2011-CC-0618.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Progressive Security Insurance Company; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 580,171; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2057.

Denied.


text:
    In the Matter of the MASHBURN MARITAL TRUST.
    No. 2011-C-0490.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Mashburn, Don; Mashburn, Joseph P.; Mashburn, Joseph Patón “Pat”; Mashburn, Richard Anthony; —Other(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 71,685, 2001-003363; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1104.

Denied.


text:
    In the Matter of the MASHBURN MARITAL TRUSTS.
    No. 2011-C-0474.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Mashburn, Timothy R.; —Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G,. Nos. 71,685, 2001-003363; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1104.

Denied.


text:
    BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and Agricultural and Mechanical College v. PFD ONE, L.L.C., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-0746.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. K, No. 2010-8075; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0118.

Denied.


text:
    BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and Agricultural and Mechanical College v. PFD THREE, L.L.C., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-0745.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 2010-7986; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-0-141.

Denied.


text:
    BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and Agricultural and Mechanical College v. 201 SOUTH MIRO STREET, L.L.C., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-0743.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. K, No. 2010-7576; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0119.

Denied.


text:
    BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and Agricultural and Mechanical College v. 2300 CANAL STREET, L.L.C., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-0744.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2010-7577; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0082.

Denied.


text:
    BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and Agricultural and Mechanical College v. 2226 CANAL STREET, L.L.C., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-0742.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2010-7575; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0083.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Antonio THOMAS.
    No. 2011-KK-0739.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Thomas, Antonio; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 502-247; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0278.

Denied.


text:
    Carlos REYES-SILVA v. DRILLCHEM DRILLING SOLUTIONS, LLC.
    No. 2011-C-0732.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Drillchem Drilling Solutions LLC; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2009 1445-G; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1017.

Denied.


text:
    Nonesia MAY v. Gregory D. DUNN, Sr., Graves Chevrolet, Inc. and Sentry Select Insurance Company.
    No. 2011-CC-0728.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Sentry Select Insurance Company; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 577,022; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0008.

Denied.


text:
    Nathaniel GOINES, Jr. v. Dianne B. GOINES.
    No. 2011-C-0721.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Goines Jr., Nathaniel; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 42,373; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-CA-994.

Denied.


text:
    NEUMIN PRODUCTION COMPANY, et al. v. TIGER BEND, LTD., et al.
    No. 2011-C-0717.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re The Mikell Group; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 70481-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 10-1307.

Denied.


text:
    RENT-A-CENTER EAST, INC. v. LINCOLN PARISH SALES & USE TAX COMMISSION and Jerry W. Moore, in his Capacity as Administrator of the Lincoln Parish Sales & Use Tax Commission.
    No. 2011-C-0713.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Rent-A-Center East Inc.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 52,447; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,054-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Raymond RAMOS a/k/a Angel Cordoba v. JB JAMES CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC and The Gray Insurance Company.
    No. 2011-CC-0466.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Gray Insurance Company; JB James Construction Co. LLC et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation District 6, No. 09-06479; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2078.

Denied. Premature.


text:
    Michele SKINNER and Kathryn Skinner v. AGGRESSOR FLEET, LIMITED, Aggressor Fleet Franchising, Inc., Aggressors International, Ltd., Galapagos Aggressor, Galamazonas S.A., Wayne Hasson, Chris Santiago, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London and the Shipowners’ Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) Consolidated with Patricia Anne Skinner v. Aggressor Fleet, Limited, et al. Consolidated with Pauline Peng Skinner, Individually as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert F.L. Skinner, and as Representative, Guardian and Natural Tutrix of her Minor Daughter, Meredith F.K. Skinner v. Aggressor Fleet, Limited, et al. Consolidated with Patricia Anne Skinner v. Aggressor Fleet, Limited, et al. Consolidated with Michelle Skinner And Kathryn Skinner v. Aggressor Fleet, Limited, et al. Consolidated with Pauline Peng Skinner, et al. v. Aggressor Fleet, Limited, et al.
    No. 2011-C-0738.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Skinner, Patricia; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 115,837, 115,-839, 115,874; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2010 CA 1606, 2010 CA 1607.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vincent SIMMONS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1174.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Simmons, Vincent; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 37,596.

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

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert CARLEY, et al.
    No. 2011-KD-0952.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Carley, Robert; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. W-04-3-77; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0815.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert CARLEY, et al.
    No. 2011-KD-0922.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Carley, Robert; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. W-04-3-77; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0793.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Eric WILSON.
    No. 2011-KK-0899.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Wilson, Eric; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 498-200; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0186.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vincent M. CASTILLO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0844.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Castillo, Vincent M.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, Jefferson Parish First Court, Nos. F1739838, F1808683, F1808684, F1808685, F1859335, F1870547, F1859969; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-K-294.

Denied.


text:
    In the Matter of the MASHBURN MARITAL TRUSTS.
    No. 2011-C-0818.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Mashburn, Don; Mashburn, Joseph P.; Mashburn, Joseph Patón “Pat”; Mashburn, Richard Anthony; —Other(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 2001-003363, 71,685; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1819.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jerry DANTIN.
    No. 2011-KK-0812.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Dantin, Jerry; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 10-4101; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-K-245.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Thomas FORD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0779.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Ford, Thomas; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 04-09-0047; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2010 KW 2324, 2010 KW 2311.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Emmitt HILLS.
    No. 2011-KP-0777.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Hills, Emmitt; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, Nos. 89584, 89585.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Crystal BUTLER.
    No. 2011-KK-0776.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re Butler, Crystal; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 495-594; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0042.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY v. GEISMAR SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, LLC.
    No. 2011-C-0747.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2011.
   In re The Dow Chemical Company; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 579503; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1341.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    MURPHY CORMIER GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HOSPITALS, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-1056.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 23, 2011.
   In re Cambre, Glenn; Department of Health & Hospitals; Office of Public Health; State of Louisiana et al.; —Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 2007-3828; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 11-00477.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and in their Capacities as Commissioners Lambert C. Boissiere, III, James M. Field, Foster L. Campbell, Eric Skrmetta, and Clyde C. Holloway v. LOUISIANA STATE LEGISLATURE.
    No. 2011-CD-1065.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2011.
   In re Boissiere III, Commissioner Lambert C.; Campbell, Commissioner Foster L.; Field, Commissioner James M.; Holloway, Commissioner Clyde C; Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.; Skrmet-ta, Commissioner Eric; —Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 592,231.

Writ denied as premature.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Genaro GONZALES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1200.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Gonzales, Genaro; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 459-518; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0531.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Antoinette HOLMES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1199.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Holmes, Antoinette; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 97-6759, 97-6760; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 08-WR-1125, 09-KH-385.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gayle NEIDHARDT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1196.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Neidhardt, Gayle; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 90-2672; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-203.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Richard LAY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1184.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Lay, Richard; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. 0, Nos. 383759, 215530, 197086, 131275, 130364; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0348.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kevin JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1183.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Johnson, Kevin; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 570193; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 587.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    George LOPEZ v. Cynthia HEBERT, Records Department Supervisor, et al.
    No. 2010-CI-1158.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Lopez, George; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 566,407; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1777.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Theodore J. PHILLIPS STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1142.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 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. 2003-162543; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0484.

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. Wyatt MORGAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1201.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Morgan, Wyatt; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2007422F; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-110-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James FULLER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1202.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Fuller, James; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 179,480; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-595-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael GADDIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1203.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Gaddis, Michael; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 03-5508; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-165.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Brandon ROBERTSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1220.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Robertson, Brandon; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 02-5336; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-157.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joshua WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1224.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Williams, Joshua; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 365-337; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0561.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Susan DELAUGHTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1226.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Delaughter, Susan; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2008-729F; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,598-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jonathon SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1227.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Smith, Jonathon; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 3, No. 238,578; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-534-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kendrelle BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1228.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Brown, Kendrelle; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 469-700; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0559.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Bobbie Jean HAGINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1232.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Hagins, Bobbie Jean; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 258,170; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-500-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Arthur LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1233.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Lewis, Arthur; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 340-019; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0640.

Denied.


text:
    Orlando RIVERA v. COMMAND CONSTRUCTION, LLC.
    No. 2011-CC-0750.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Command Construction LLC; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. 07, No. 09-07535; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-C-140.

Denied.


text:
    Matha Lee CURRY v. HEALTHSOUTH NORTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL-HOMER CAMPUS, Sue Weathers, And Columbia Casualty Insurance Company.
    No. 2011-C-0749.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Curry, Matha Lee; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 36,883; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-015-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Malvin D. BENOIT, et al. v. INTRACOSTAL TUBULAR SERVICES, INC., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-0748.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Bass Enterprises Production Co.; BEPCO L.P.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 03-14235; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0247.

Denied.


text:
    MichaeL FOGLEMAN, et al. v. MEAUX SURFACE PROTECTION, INC.
    No. 2011-C-0712.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Meaux Surface Protection Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 2007-3865; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1210.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Roy R. PECOT.
    No. 2011-K-0123.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Pecot, Roy R.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 04-5081; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KA-261.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Arthur J. HANDY aka Arthur G. Handy aka Arthur James Handy aka Arthor James Handy aka Arth Handy.
    No. 2011-K-0081.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 2007 CR 115497; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-625.

Denied.


text:
    STATE in the Interest of D.R.
    No. 2011-CK-0264.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re D.R.; —Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 2009-120-01-DQ-E; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0404.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J„ would grant.


text:
    STATE in the Interest of D.R.
    No. 2010-CK-2711.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 2009-120-01-DQ-E; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0404.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyree YOUNG v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1246.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Young, Tyree; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 370037; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0258.

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. Larry MACK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-OK-1234.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Mack, Larry; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 06060900; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0339.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Vorris WHITE.
    No. 2011-KK-0780.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re White, Vorris; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 495-050; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1735.

Denied.


text:
    Robin BUELLE and Kenneth S. Smith v. Thomas PERIOU, M.D. and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company.
    No. 2011-CC-0775.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2004-12954; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0161.

Denied.


text:
    In the Matter of the SUCCESSION OF Napoleon “Mutt” HARRISON.
    No. 2011-C-0773.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2011.
   In re Palmer, Charles B.W.; —Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 10451; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2010 CA 1566, 2010 CW 2240.

Denied.