author: PER CURIAM. KNOLL, J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles CARTER.
    No. 2013-KK-1952.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 2, 2013.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 2014.
   PER CURIAM.

[, Granted. The trial court’s judgment granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.

Testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress from Trooper Todd Cummings of the Louisiana State Police established that on the evening of April 13, 2012, Sergeant Chris Jordan received a tip from the unnamed informant, not previously known to the police, identifying defendant by name and advising that defendant was en route to Lake Providence by bus from the Dallas Fort Worth area with substantial amounts of marijuana and cocaine in his possession and would be arriving in Monroe, an intermediate stop on the bus route, later that night, where he would be picked up by a Jeffrey Carter (presumably a .relation) and driven on to Lake Providence. Defendant would need the ride because Lake Providence is approximately 70 miles from Monroe, the closest stop on the bus route. Sergeant Jordan contacted Greyhound and verified that a bus was en route from Dallas' and would stop in Monroe later that night. Jordan then got on his computer and determined that a Charles Carter lives in Lake Providence and that he had a prior record for burglary and narcotics trafficking. Jordan |2printed out a picture of defendant from his database and the officers headed for the Greyhound bus station in Monroe. Trooper Cummings spoke with the terminal manager and determined that a bus from Texas was en route, but was running some two hours late. Cummings had also arranged for backup units on the scene, including a canine unit with a drug detection dog.

The officers established a surveillance of the station and waited for the bus to arrive. In the interim, the officers ran the plate numbers of the vehicles parked on the lot but apparently did not find anything of significance. When the bus finally pulled into the station, defendant stepped out carrying a soft vinyl bag and began scanning the parking lot as if looking for someone. Jordan immediately identified defendant from the picture he had with him and he used his cellular phone to take another picture, which he then transmitted to his informant, who replied and confirmed defendant’s identity. When defendant began walking through the parking lot as if he were about to leave, the officers moved in to detain him. Trooper Cummings took defendant to the ground when it appeared that he was about to bolt and Sergeant Jordan then removed the vinyl bag from defendant’s hand. Jordan immediately felt the outline of a small handgun through the soft vinyl bag and so informed Trooper Cummings, who promptly handcuffed defendant to secure him. Jordan opened the bag and found the handgun inside a smaller shaving kit together with a mix of crack and powder cocaine. The officers immediately arrested defendant for possession of the hand gun (as a previously convicted felon) and the cocaine, and transported him to the stationhouse for booking. Events had unfolded so rapidly that the officers did not take the opportunity to have the drug | ..¡detection dog take a sniff of the vinyl bag on the scene. The sniff took place later at the station-house and evidently confirmed what the officers already knew with respect to the cocaine retrieved from the vinyl bag.

In ruling on the motion to suppress, the trial court acknowledged that a tip provided by a first-time informant with no known track record of reliability may provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop when it is sufficiently predictive of the individual’s future conduct, as determined by the ensuing police investigation. Under the particular circumstances of a given case, the police may reasonably assume that “because an informant is shown to be right about some things, he is probably right about other facts that he has alleged, including the claim that the object of the tip is engaged in criminal activity.” Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 331, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 2417, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990) (discussing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 244, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2335, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). The trial court found, however, that all defendant did to bear out the informant’s predictions in the present case was to “get on the bus,” which was not a prediction of future conduct but a statement of fact at the time, and then get off at the intermediate Monroe stop. That much of the tip was predictive. See, e.g., United States v. Walker, 7 F.3d 26, 30 (2nd Cir.1993) (“[T]he tip predicted that Walker would be traveling on a train from the south and that he would arrive in New York City. While it may not have contained as much ‘predictive’ information as the tips in White and Gates, the district court concluded that the caller ‘knew enough about the defendant’s activities to know that he would get off in New York rather than at another stop.’”) (citation omitted). On the other hand, the informant in the present case was evidently wrong that Jeffery Carter would be waiting for defendant in the 14parking lot of the bus terminal to transport him to Lake Providence by car. That much of the tip did not appear reliably predictive.

Under these circumstances, the court declined to subscribe to the general proposition that “[bjecause only a small number of people are generally privy to an individual’s itinerary, it is reasonable for police to believe that a person with access to such information is likely to also have access to reliable information about that individual’s illegal activities.” White, 496 U.S. at 332, 110 S.Ct. at 2417. The trial court thus concluded the police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain defendant. The court further found that, even assuming the troopers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant, they had no particularized concerns for their safety and could not lawfully seize the vinyl bag from defendant’s hand in a self-protective “frisk” for weapons. The court of appeal found no error in the trial court’s ruling. State v. Carter, 48,559 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/8/13) (“To the extent that the officers were able to corroborate the predictive information provided by an anonymous caller, the information was insufficient to establish that the information was reliable.”).

The trial court’s assessment of the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the evidence in this case failed, however, to account for another significant factor bearing on the credibility of the informant and the reliability of his information. See White, 496 U.S. at 330, 110 S.Ct. at 2416 (“Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability. Both factors — quantity and quality — are considered in the ‘totality of the circumstances — the whole picture,’ United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981), that must be taken into account when evaluating whether there is reasonable suspicion”). The |¡¡informant did not merely provide the police with accurate information regarding the suspect’s name and his intended destination via the intermediate stop in Monroe, and then disappear into the night. The informant continued to stay in contact with the police as they acted immediately on the basis of the information he (or she) provided. Thus, when Sergeant Jordan took the cellular picture of defendant as he stepped from the bus in the Monroe Greyhound terminal and transmitted it, the informant immediately responded and confirmed defendant’s identity. The informant’s willingness to stay in contact with the police during the investigation offered additional assurance he was passing on trustworthy information and not just rumor or speculation, or worse, that might cause him trouble if the police found they were chasing after bad information. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 276, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 1381, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“Instant caller identification is widely available to police, and, if anonymous tips are proving unreliable and distracting to police, squad cars can be sent within seconds to the location of the telephone used by the informant.... It is unlawful to make false reports to the police ... and the ability of the police to trace the identity of anonymous telephone informants may be a factor which lends reliability to what, years earlier, might have been considered unreliable anonymous tips.”); see also State v. Elliott, 09-1727, p. 7 (La.3/16/10), 35 So.3d 247, 252 (reliability of 911 call demonstrated by willingness of the caller to “hold[ ] herself accountable for the information she provided by identifying herself, if not by name, then by the cellular phone from which she was calling.”) (citing J.L., 529 U.S. at 276, 120 S.Ct. at 1381 (Kennedy, J., concurring)).

| ^As for the absent Jeffery Carter, the missing element from the informant’s prediction, the police could reasonably conclude that the late arrival of the bus, two hours behind schedule, had disrupted defendant’s plans for the car ride to Lake Providence. Under all of the circumstances known to them, the police had reasonable suspicion, the requisite “minimal level of objective justification,” INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 1763, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984), for conducting a brief investigatory detention of defendant “to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information.” State v. Fauria, 393 So.2d 688, 690 (La.1981); see White, 496 U.S. at 330, 110 S.Ct. at 2416 (“Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than required to show probable cause.”). Given the nature of the informant’s tip, the police also had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant’s vinyl luggage, a likely repository for contraband drugs. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 706, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 2644, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) (“[W]hen an officer’s observations lead him reasonably to believe that a traveler is carrying luggage that contains narcotics, the principles of Terryi[v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ] and its progeny would permit the officer to detain the luggage briefly to investigate the circumstances that aroused his suspicion, provided that the investigative detention is properly limited in scope.”)- That detention had barely occurred when Sergeant Jordan felt the outline of a handgun inside the bag. The officer acted reasonably in opening the bag and searching it to retrieve the gun, thereby also bringing into plain view the' mix of crack and powdered 17cocaine, not only in a self-protective search to secure the weapon, based on “an articulable suspicion that the suspect is potentially dangerous,” while conducting an investigatory stop, see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1052, n.16, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3482, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983), but also in a search incident to a formal arrest that would occur moments later on probable cause that defendant, a previously convicted felon, was in possession of a firearm, in violation of La.R.S. 14:95.1, as well as the contraband drugs. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2564, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980) (“Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner’s person, we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest rather than vice versa.”); State v. Melton, 412 So.2d 1065, 1068 (La.1982) (“When there is probable cause but no formal arrest, a limited search to preserve evidence is justified.”) (citing Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973)).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

KNOLL, J., dissents with reasons.

HUGHES, J., would deny.

KNOLL, J.,

dissenting.

hThe majority’s decision in this case is a departure from long-established search and seizure jurisprudence from this Court, condoning the State’s investigatory stop of the defendant predicated solely upon a non-predictive, anonymous tip which provided the authorities with little more than the defendant’s name, his race, his location on a bus headed for Monroe, Louisiana, and the assertion that the defendant had substantial amounts of cocaine and marijuana in his possession. This information was devoid of any reasonable grounds upon which the police could base its belief the informant possessed reliable information about the defendant’s alleged illegal activities. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s finding the police possessed reasonable suspicion, and I would affirm the District Court’s suppression of the evidence.

The majority finds the police did have reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop on the grounds the anonymous informant’s “willingness to stay in contact with the police during the investigation offered additional assurance he was passing on trustworthy information and not just rumor or speculation, or worse, that might cause him trouble if the police found they were chasing bad information.” As support for this finding, the majority cites comments Justice Kennedy made in his concurrence in Florida v. J.L., addressing hypothetical facts he acknowledged were not presented by the record before that Court. 529 U.S.2266, 276, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) (“These matters, of course, must await discussion 'in other cases, where the issues are presented by the record;”) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The majority also cites this Court’s recent opinion in State v. Elliott, 09-1727 (La.3/16/10), 35.So.3d 247, where we found an informant’s tip sufficiently reliable when she provided information to the police about a suspected drunk driver as the crime was happening before her and then pulled in behind the patrol vehicle and continued to make herself available to police and accountable in person for the information she provided. Those facts are very different from the present case. See id. (“In the present case, the witnesses were clearly citizen informants providing information about a crime as it was happening and not anonymous tipsters.”).

Here, the majority finds this anonymous informant reliable because the police officer transmitted a picture to the cellular phone number from which the informant called and the person who received that message “immediately responded and confirmed defendant’s identity.” The majority bases its reasoning on the assumptions the informant remained in contact with the police and he could have been held accountable if he provided false information to the authorities. I find the majority clearly errs in this regard. There are a number of problems with these two assumptions. First, it is not at all clear from the record the informant did actually maintain contact with the police. Indeed, the facts provide no real assurance the informant who initiated the first call was even the same person who responded to Sergeant Jordan’s picture message. Further, the informant could only be held accountable if the phone actually belonged to him or could be traced to his possession. If, however, the informant intended to provide false information to the police, it would be rational for him to surreptitiously borrow or to steal a phone to serve his purposes before discarding it. Here, the record is void of any evidence the police verified the cellular phone belonged to the informant. Thus, as far as |3providing assurances of an informant’s reliability, the importance of the police’s possession of the informant’s cellular phone number is based on pure speculation and, as a measure of the informant’s reliability, it is only as good as the informant’s intentions.

Absent a reliable informant, we have expected the police to “set up more extensive surveillance of the defendant until they observed suspicious or unusual behavior.” State v. Robertson, 97-2960, p. 5 (La.10/20/98), 721 So.2d 1268, 1270. Significantly, in this case, police had its canine unit on the scene which, if used, could have provided officers with the probable cause needed to arrest the defendant without violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution. See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983). However, the police did not use this tool available to them, relying solely on this anonymous tip without first justifying the reliability of the informant’s information.

The police are required to make a showing of reliability to protect citizens from unreasonable searches predicated on baseless anonymous tips supplied by those motivated not by truth and civic duty, but by deceit and malevolence. In my view, I am not at all confident the police’s possession of a cellular phone number is sufficient to establish an informant’s reliability. I agree with the Trial Judge’s reasons and would deny the State’s writ.

      . The state has charged defendant with a violation of La.R.S. 14:95.1, convicted felon in possession of a firearm, on the basis of his prior conviction in 2003 for simple burglary.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Naney ABOUELAZM, et al. v. Tyronne JACKSON, State of Louisiana through Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Warden Mariana Leger. Maria Morris, Jocelyn Douglas and all others similarly situated v. Tyronne Jackson, State of Louisiana through Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and Warden Mariana Leger.
    No. 2013-C-2933.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 8, 2014.
   In re Abouelazm, Naney; Albert, Troy; Allen, Barbara A.; Allen, Michelle A.; Anderson, Kristie L.; Anderson, Selina; Anthony, Erica; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 66,532, 67,121; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2013 CA 0011, 2013 CA 0012.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jerome CANSELO.
    No. 2013-KK-2954.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 8, 2014.
   In re Cánselo, Jerome; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 516-171; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1332.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    CHICAGO PROPERTY INTERESTS, L.L.C., et al. v. Aaron BROUSSARD, et al.
    No. 2013-CC-2983.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 8, 2014.
   In re Broussard, Aaron; Jefferson Parish; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, Nos. 624-459, 624-778, 625-145, 626-415, 635-370, 635-539, 635-883, 625-998; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1648.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    CHICAGO PROPERTY INTERESTS, L.L.C., et al v. Aaron BROUSSARD, et al.
    No. 2013-CC-2984.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 8, 2014.
   In re Broussard, Aaron; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, Nos. 624-459, 624-778, 625-145, 626-415, 635-370, 635-539, 635-883, 625-998; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1647.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Samuel E. MACK, Jr.
    No. 2013-K-1311.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 482-029; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-0625.

Granted.


text:
    William and Tammy GETTYS, individually and on Behalf of their deceased daughter Gabrielle Gettys v. Joaquin WONG, M.D., State of Louisiana, and Louisiana State University Health Science Center.
    No. 2013-CC-2257.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Louisiana State University Health Science Center; Wong, M.D., Joaquin;— Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2010-134, 2011-5483; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1138.

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


text:
    Vincent Mark CASTILLO v. Newell NORMAN, et al.
    No. 2013-CP-2425.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Castillo, Vincent Mark; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, Nos. 710-516, 721-972, 726-005; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-C-592.

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


text:
    Vinod MISTRY and Nitila Mistry v. DESAI HOLDINGS, L.L.C.
    No. 2013-CC-2429.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Desai Holdings, L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 673-592; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-C-521.

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


text:
    Appeal of Decision of DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 13-PDB-078.
    No. 2013-OB-2570.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Carter II, Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of Disciplinary Board No. 13-PDB-078 Disciplinary Board, No. 13-PDB-078.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    Appeal of Decision of DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 13-PDB-052.
    No. 2013-OB-2571.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Disciplinary Board No. 13-PDB-052; Lowry, Leonidas; — Other(s); Applying For Appeal of Decision of Disciplinary Board No. 13-PDB-052 Disciplinary Board, No. 13-PDB-052.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert S. KRODINGER.
    No. 2013-KO-0674.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Krodinger, Robert S.; — Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated October 25, 2013, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 487-956; to the Court of Appeal Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-0134.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jerome WOLFE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-0372.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Wolfe, Jerome; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 367948; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KW 1971.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of D.B.
    No. 2013-CK-0989.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re B., D.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Juvenile Court, No. 103598; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0572.

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., and WEIMER and HUGHES, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kendrick K. HENRY.
    No. 2013-KO-1334.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Henry, Kendrick K.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 09-6198; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-KA-545.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin P. HOLMES.
    No. 2013-K-1395.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Holmes, Kevin P.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 09-6616; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-KA-579.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Irving NAQUIN.
    No. 2013-KO-1430.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Naquin, Irving; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 502-534; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-0911.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Andre C. PRESTON/“aka Dre”/“aka Gutta”.
    No. 2013-KO-1431.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Andre C. Preston/“aka Dre”/“aka Gutta”; — Defendants-Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 10-1116; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-KA-798.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Julian NELLDEL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1443.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Nelldel, Julian; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 03-98-0382; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0464.

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. Jerome FRENCH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1446.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re French, Jerome; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 440-494; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0641.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Maurice FLORANT.
    No. 2013-K-1451.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Florant, Maurice; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 11-2106; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-KA-736.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ted DURBIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1453.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Durbin, Ted; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 89-1385; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-356.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jamario R. ALEXANDER.
    No. 2013-KO-1454.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Alexander, Jamario R.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 11-4660; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-KA-807.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Thomas DAIGLE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1464.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Daigle, Thomas; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 34730-09; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 13-00513.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Leo MITCHELL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1465.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Mitchell, Leo; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 00-2982; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-266.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Wilbert MARCELIN.
    No. 2013-KO-1485.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Marcelin, Wilbert; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 499-075; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-0645.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Edmundo CERDA-ANIMA.
    No. 2013-KO-1487.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Cerda-Anima, Edmundo; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 07-2908; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-KA-682.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Curtis Allen BRIDGES.
    No. 2013-KO-1488.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Bridges, Curtis Allen; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 515163; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 2120.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David PATTERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1494.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Patterson, David; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 83-2502; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-362.

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. Charles Kenneth WALLACE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1497.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Wallace, Charles Kenneth; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 72-59745; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0457.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. William PAYNE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1498.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Payne, William; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 293,948; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-263-KH C/W 48,399-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Talonzo Detroit DEBROW v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1502.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Debrow, Talonzo Detroit; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 202,660; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-519-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 98-2830 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Devonta MITCHELL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1504.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Mitchell Devonta; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 302,702; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 12-01137.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Douglas ROBERTSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1505.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Robertson, Douglas; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 07-03-0089; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0471.

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. Daryl SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1507.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Smith, Daryl; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 06-1031; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-409.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph M. BRISTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1508.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Brister, Joseph M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 395,328; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0497.

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.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Stanley S. DORSEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1580.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Dorsey, Stanley S.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 04-7986; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-421.

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. Jonathan J. LeBLANC v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1584.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re LeBlanc, Jonathan J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 509-426; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0824.

Denied.


text:
    Burton T. ZAUNBRECHER, et al. v. Robert GARRITY, et al.
    No. 2013-CC-2155.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Waitz, Nellie; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2013-0168-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 13-00556.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gloria JOHNSON.
    No. 2013-KK-2279.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 449-305; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1021.

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., and VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Julie LAMBERT and Jason Magnon, Individually and on Behalf of their Minor Daughter, Mallory Magnon v. Angela ENGLISH, Gee’s Fitness Force, LLC, Gee’s Aerobics, Gee’s Active Wear and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2013-CC-2391.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. C577487; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 0978.

Denied.


text:
    Terrence SCOTT v. Michael JOHNSON et al.
    No. 2013-CC-2396.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Johnson, Michael et al.; Old Republic Insurance Company; Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 09-13137; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1176.

Denied.


text:
    ROUSE’S ENTERPRISES, LLC v. ASSOCIATED GROCERS, INC.
    No. 2013-CC-2398.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Rouse’s Enterprises, LLC; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, - Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 109070; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 1244.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. David BROWN.
    No. 2013-KK-2399.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Brown, David; — 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. 2013 KW 1312.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    Malik Alqadr IHSAAN v. BLUE RIBBON FOOD STORES OF BATON ROUGE, et al.
    No. 2013-CP-2403.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Ihsaan, Malik Alqadr; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 446248; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 0118.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    In re the minor child Haley JONES.
    No. 2013-C-2404.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Jones, Shannon; — Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2009-30388; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 1486.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    In re the minor child Haley JONES.
    No. 2013-C-2405.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Jones, Shannon; — Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2009-30388; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 1598.

Denied.


text:
    Cary Devon TRAVIS v. SPITALE’S BAR, INC., State of Louisiana, State of Louisiana through the Department of Health and Hospitals, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2013-C-2409.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana through the Department of Health and Hospitals; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 532,383; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA1366.

Denied.


text:
    727 TOULOUSE, L.L.C. v. The BISTRO AT THE MAISON DE VILLE, L.L.C.
    No. 2013-C-2414.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re The Bistro At The Maison De Ville, L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2011-11143; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-CA-1014.

Denied.

VICTORY and HUGHES, JJ„ would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bobby MORRIS.
    No. 2013-KK-2416.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Morris, Bobby; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 511-647; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2013-K-0867, 2013-K-0864.

Denied.


text:
    NAVISTAR, INC. v. ATTERBERY TRUCK SALES, INC.
    No. 2013-CC-2417.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Atterbery Truck Sales Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission, No. 2010-053; 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 707-911; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-C-597.

Denied.


text:
    Mary Ann CLEMONS and Donald Clemons v. TULANE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AND CLINIC et al.
    No. 2013-CC-2431.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Killackey, Dr. Mary; Slakey, Dr. Douglas; The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund d/b/a Tulane University Medical School; Tulane University Hospital and Clinic, et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2008-7429; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-0865.

Denied.


text:
    Tina DEROUEN, Et Vir., Howard Derouen, III v. PARK PLACE SURGERY CENTER, L.L.C., et al.
    No. 2013-CC-2440.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Park Place Surgery Center L.L.C., et al.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 2009-3292; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 13-01087. •

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Robert CONERLY v. TRIAD NITROGEN.
    No. 2013-C-2441.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Triad Nitrogen; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Louisiana Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 5, No. 10-07542; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 2032.

Denied.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ, would grant.


text:
    Cary Devon TRAVIS v. SPITALE’S BAR, INC., State of Louisiana, State of Louisiana through the Department of Health and Hospitals, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2013-C-2447.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Travis, Cary Devon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 532,383; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 1366.

Denied.


text:
    Mary Ann CLEMONS and Donald Clemons v. TULANE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL and CLINIC et al.
    No. 2013-CC-2485.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Killackey, Dr. Mary; Slakey, Dr. Douglas; The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund d/b/a Tulane University Medical School; Tulane University Hospital and Clinic, et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, Nos. 2008-7429, 2010-515; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-0866.

Denied.


text:
    Robert CONERLY v. TRIAD NITROGEN.
    No. 2013-C-2515.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Conerly, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Louisiana Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 5, No. 10-07542; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 2032.

Denied.


text:
    Alex Sia DUZAR v. Dampskibsselskabet Norden AKTIESELSKAB.
    No. 2013-CC-2584.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Aktieselskab, Dampskibsselskabet Norden; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 59-474; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-0857.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE v. 1732 CANAL ST., L.L.C., et al.
    No. 2013-C-2383.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   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. N, No. 2010-10488; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-CA-1370.

Denied.


text:
    Kelvin WELLS v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Brenda Magee and the Juvenile Court.
    No. 2013-OC-2382.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Wells, Kelvin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Juvenile Court, No. 2-00-092.

Denied.


text:
    Shawn TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of her major children Ashley Taylor and her minor grandchildren Janiyah Robison and Jamal Robinson, Jr. v. CARLO DITTA, INC., Mrs. Carlo Ditta, individually, Reginald Garner and Great American Insurance Company.
    No. 2014-CC-0063.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2014.
   In re Robinson, Jr., Jamal; Robison, Janiyah; Taylor, Ashley; Taylor, Shawn; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2011-11469; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1698.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robin CATES.
    No. 2014-KD-0116.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 15, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 515-561; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2014-K-0073.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robin CATES.
    No. 2014-KD-0117.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 15, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 515-561; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2014-K-0074.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    Callie Ann COOK v. FAMILY CARE SERVICES, INC.
    No. 2013-CC-2326.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Cook, Callie Ann; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 02, No. 12-07096; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCW 13-108.

Granted.


text:
    CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and Trinity United Methodist Preschool v. Thelma DARDAR. Thelma Dardar v. Trinity Universal Methodist Preschool, et al.
    No. 2013-C-2351.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Church Mutual Insurance Company et al; Trinity United Methodist Preschool; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 07, No. 12-07207; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2013-C-0037, 2012-CA-0659.

Granted.


text:
    The ASCENSION PARISH SALES AND USE TAX AUTHORITY v. LOUISIANA MACHINERY COMPANY, L.L.C.
    No. 2012-C-0977.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 98122; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 1785.

Granted. The application is remanded to the court of appeal, which is instructed to consider the matter in light of this court’s recent opinions in Washington Parish Sheriff’s Office v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 13-0583 (La.10/15/13), 126 So.3d 1273, and Catahoula Parish School Bd. v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 12-2504 (La.10/15/13), 124 So.3d 1065.


text:
    The ASCENSION PARISH SALES AND USE TAX AUTHORITY v. LOUISIANA MACHINERY RENTALS, INC.
    No. 2012-C-0977.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Machinery Rentals, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 98,122; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 1784.

Granted. The application is remanded to the court of appeal, which is instructed to consider the matter in light of this court’s recent opinions in Washington Parish Sheriff’s Office v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 13-0583 (La.10/15/13), 126 So.3d 1273, and Catahoula Parish School Bd. v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 12-2504 (La.10/15/13), 124 So.3d 1065.


text:
    LASALLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al. v. LOUISIANA MACHINERY COMPANY, LLC.
    No. 2012-C-1567.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of La-salle, 28th Judicial District Court, No. 37,-446; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-259.

Granted. The application is remanded to the court of appeal, which is instructed to consider the matter in light of this court’s recent opinions in Washington Parish Sheriffs Office v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 13-0583 (La.10/15/13), 126 So.3d 1273, and Catahoula Parish School Bd. v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 12-2504 (La.10/15/13), 124 So.3d 1065.


text:
    LASALLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al. v. LOUISIANA MACHINERY RENTALS, LLC.
    No. 2012-C-1568.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Machinery Rentals, LLC; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of La-salle, 28th Judicial District Court, No. 37,-447; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-259.

Granted. The application is remanded to the court of appeal, which is instructed to consider the matter in light of this court’s recent opinions in Washington Parish Sheriffs Office v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 13-0583 (La.10/15/13), 126 So.3d 1273, and Catahoula Parish School Bd. v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 12-2504 (La.10/15/13), 124 So.3d 1065.


text:
    The LIVINGSTON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, through its SALES AND USE TAX DIVISION v. LOUISIANA MACHINERY COMPANY, L.L.C. Livingston Parish School Board, through its Sales and Use Tax Division v. Louisiana Machinery Rentals, L.L.C.
    No. 2012-C-1585.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Machinery Rentals, L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 130,695 C/W 130,691; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 1235 C/W 2011 CA 1236.

Granted. The application is remanded to the court of appeal, which is instructed to consider the matter in light of this court’s recent opinions in Washington Parish Sheriffs Office v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 13-0583 (La.10/15/13), 126 So.3d 1273, and Catahoula Parish School Bd. v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 12-2504 (La.10/15/13), 124 So.3d 1065.


text:
    CONCORDIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD Concordia Parish Hospital District # 1 Concordia Parish Police Jury City of Vidalia Town of Ferriday v. LOUISIANA MACHINERY RENTALS, LLC.
    No. 2012-C-2503.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re City of Vidalia; Concordia Parish Hospital District # 1; Concordia Parish Police Jury; Concordia Parish School Board, et al.; Town of Ferriday; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 45,820; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-422.

Granted. The application is remanded to the court of appeal, which is instructed to consider the matter in light of this court’s recent opinions in Washington Parish Sheriff’s Office v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 13-0583 (La.10/15/18), 126 So.3d 1273, and Catahoula Parish School Bd. v. Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC, 12-2504 (La.10/15/13), 124 So.3d 1065.


text:
    Gerald BELL Sr. and Lularose S. Bell v. LOUISIANA STATE POLICE and West Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs Office.
    No. 2013-CC-2505.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Bell, Lularose S.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 37,264; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 0863.

Granted. The matter is remanded to the court of appeal for briefing, argument, and opinion. In its opinion, the court of appeal should discuss its earlier holding in Delta American Corp. v. Reliant Technologies, Inc., 09-1895 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/11/10).

CLARK, J., would deny.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John W. MATHIEU, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-0706.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Mathieu Sr., John; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated November 22, 2013,; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 05-4388; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-02, 12-KH-919,13-KH-295,13-KH-309.

Reconsideration denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Raymond ROCHON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1377.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Rochon, Raymond; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this court’s action dated November 22, 2013; Parish of Acadia, 15th District Court Div. A, No. 32525.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Vester JOHNSON v. T. Taylor TOWNSEND and Donald G. Kelly.
    No. 2013-CP-1760.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Johnson, Vester; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated November 1, 2013; Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 84,884; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 13-00405,

Reconsideration denied. Untimely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, § 5(a).


text:
    Lenshonda ALEXANDER, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Son, Damian Alexander and Darlene Myers-Alexander v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.; ABC Insurance Company; General Motors Corporation; EFG Insurance Company; New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.; XYZ Insurance Company; MNO Airbag Manufacturer; QRS Insurance Company; State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al.
    No. 2013-C-0756.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Lakeside Imports, Inc. d/b/a Lakeside Toyota; — Defendant; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s action dated September 27, 2013, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 03-1393; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1259.

Rehearing denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., recused.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    Patrick O’HERN v. DEPARTMENT OF POLICE.
    No. 2013-C-1416.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re O’Hern, Patrick; — Plaintiff; Applying for Rehearing of this court’s action taken November 8, 2013, Parish of Orleans, Civil Service Commission, No. 7786; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-CA-0600.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    In re LaShanda M. ROBINSON.
    No. 2013-B-1924.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Robinson, LaShanda M.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s order dated November 15, 2013; Office of Disciplinary Board No. 10-DB-029 C/W ll-DB-104.

Rehearing denied.

JOHNSON and WEIMER, JJ„ would grant.


text:
    Howard HALL and Marvell Smith v. HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC. d/b/a Baton Rouge Health Care Center. Howard Hall and Marvell Smith v. Resthaven Living Center, LLC.
    No. 2013-CC-2755.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Resthaven Living Center L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 569,326, 606,105; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 0913.

Stay denied. Writ denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant stay and writ.


text:
    Frankie JACKSON, Jr. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2013-CC-2762.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Department of Transportation & Development; State of Louisiana; — Defendant (s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 229,694; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 13-00975.

Stay denied. Writ denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant stay and writ.


text:
    Collette Josey COVINGTON and Jade Covington v. McNEESE STATE UNIVERSITY and the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System.
    No. 2012-C-2231.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Covington, Collette Josey et al.; Covington, Jade; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2001-2355; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-1077.

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., and WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    MOREL G. LEMOINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. Shirley G. SOPRANO d/b/a Gino’s Exxon.
    No. 2012-CC-2417.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Morel G. Lemoine Distributors, Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 33520 C/W 34173; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CW 1042.

Denied.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. George COOKS a/k/a Lawrence Kelly v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-0379.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re George Cooks a/k/a Lawrence Kelly; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 356-484; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-K-1763.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rannell BROWN.
    No. 2013-KP-0827.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Brown, Rannell; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 06-05-0833; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0071.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Rannell BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-0861.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Brown, Rannell; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 06-05-0833; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2013 KW 0071, 2013 KW 0833.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Barney Noel HOLT, III.
    No. 2013-KO-1090.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Holt III, Barney Noel; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 274385; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,734-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Donald B. JONES, Jr.
    No. 2013-K-1199.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Jones Jr., Donald B.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 505-784; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-0438.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Wayne BRASTFIELD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1345.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Brastfield, Wayne; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 307-948; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0484.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darius A. DUCKETT.
    No. 2013-KO-1383.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Duckett, Darius A.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 09-6616; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-KA-578.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James Lyndal FOSTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1436.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Foster, James Lyndal; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 297291; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 12-01152.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Davin Ryan HANKS.
    No. 2013-KO-1486.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Hanks, Davin Ryan; — Defendant; Applying For. Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. CR 123776; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-1440.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Russel J. BENTLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1500.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Bentley, Russel J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 466-914; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth .Circuit, No. 2012-KA-1106.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ricardo M. MADINA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1501.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Madina, Ricardo M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 377-676; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0601.

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. Kenneth D. DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1511.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Davis, Kenneth D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Desoto, 42nd Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 01-CR-006029, 01-CR-006030; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,496-KH. .

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Matthew G. STEPHENS.
    No. 2013-K-1551.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Stephens, Matthew G.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 267,565; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,978.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Coty ROGERS.
    No. 2013-K-1556.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Rogers, Coty; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 2012-2823; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 13-00337.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of T.D.
    No. 2013-CK-1557.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re D., T.; — Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Juvenile Court, No. JU103119; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KJ 0368.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Shannon HURD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1581.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Hurd, Shannon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 03-5616; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-411.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald OHLSSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1583.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Ohlsson, Ronald; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 10-4029; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-KA-708.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles L. BERGERON, Sr.
    No. 2013-KO-1590.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2014.
   In re Bergeron Sr., Charles L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 19101-08; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA12-1328.

Denied.


author: KEATY, Judge. COOKS, J.,

text:
    Juan Carlos ALLEN v. AFFORDABLE HOME FURNISHINGS.
    No. 13-176.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    Nov. 13, 2013.

      Michael B. Miller, Miller & Miller, Crowley, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Juan Carlos Allen.
    Joseph J. Bailey, David E. Boraks, Provosty, Sadler, deLaunay, Fiorenza & Sobel, Alexandria, Louisiana, for Defendant/Appellee, Affordable Home Furnishings.
    Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, MARC T. AMY, and PHYLLIS M. KEATY, Judges.
   KEATY, Judge.

| ¶ Employee appeals from a judgment rendered by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) pursuant to a motion to dismiss filed by his former employer. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Juan Carlos Allen (Allen) injured his low back and left leg while pulling up carpet in conjunction with his employment with Affordable Home Furnishings (AHF). On May 4, 2005, the WCJ signed a consent judgment decreeing that Allen was injured in the course and scope of his employment with AHF on July 19, 2003, and that he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits (TTDs) beginning on July 20, 2003, at the rate of $410 per month, subject to a credit for all previously made weekly compensation payments.

In April of 2012, Allen filed a motion and order for penalties and attorney fees based on AHF’s failure to guarantee payment of a memory foam mattress prescribed by his physician. Following a hearing, the WCJ rendered judgment in open court in favor of Allen ordering AHF to pay him a penalty of $2,000 and attorney fees of $1,500. Written judgment to that effect was signed on June 18, 2012. The judgment, which the WCJ had ordered Allen’s attorney to prepare, also referenced docket numbers 03-07165, 06-06892, and 07-08002. Approximately one month later, Allen sent AHF a satisfaction of judgment stating that the June 18, 2012 judgment providing for penalties and attorney fees had been “paid and satisfied;” docket numbers 03-07165, 06-06892, and 07-08002 were again [¿referenced at the top of the document. Thereafter, AHF filed a motion to dismiss alleging that “all disputes in the above referenced docket numbers [] have been fully and completely resolved” and seeking to have those docket numbers dismissed with prejudice. The satisfaction of judgment was attached to AHF’s motion. On August 21, 2012, the WCJ signed an order decreeing that “all claims subject to” the above-referenced docket numbers were dismissed with prejudice, “reserving all future disputes between the parties.” The words “all claims subject to” were handwritten into the order by the WCJ.

Allen appealed and is now before this court assigning two errors. First, he asserts that the WCJ erred in assigning multiple docket numbers to his single claim. Next, he asserts that the WCJ erred in ordering the dismissal of all his claims without a hearing or without evidence that all of his claims should be dismissed.

DISCUSSION

In Derouen v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 09-278 (La.App. 8 Cir. 10/7/09), 23 So.3d 389, a workers’ compensation claimant appealed from a decision of the WCJ which granted a partial satisfaction of judgment in favor of the employer. She questioned whether any authority existed for a partial satisfaction of judgment, whether her employer had proved the total amount payable under the judgment, and whether the judgment was overbroad. In analyzing the issues presented, we noted:

A necessary adjunct of the power to render a judgment is the authority to determine whether a party has complied with its dictates. “A court possesses inherently all of the power necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction even though not granted expressly by law.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 191. Necessity dictates that a party against whom | sa judgment has been rendered and who has paid the judgment is afforded some method of having that fact recognized by the courts. We, therefore, find that the WCJ had legal authority to enter the partial satisfaction of judgment.

Id. at 392. “The WCJ possesses inherent authority to determine whether the judgments he renders have been satisfied. That finding is reviewed, as any other finding of fact, under the manifest error standard.” Id.

Allen asserts that the WCJ erred in assigning multiple docket numbers to his single claim. He contends that the system used by the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) whereby multiple docket numbers are assigned to claims arising out of ongoing cases, does nothing but cause delay and confusion. More specifically, he contends that often the records from old claims that have become final judgments are filed in Baton Rouge and are, thus, unavailable for future hearings. No jurisprudence is cited by Allen in support of this assignment of error.

AHF counters that there is no merit to Allen’s assertion. First, it contends that this court should permit the OWC to control its docket as it sees fit. Further, AHF submits that the workers’ compensation scheme provides for continuing jurisdiction over workers’ compensation cases and expressly provides that judgments or awards may be subject to a claim for modification, thus, maintaining order. See La.R.S. 23:1310.8 and Madere v. W. S. Life Ins. Co., 03-110 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/29/03), 845 So.2d 1222.

“The judgment of the trial court is presumed correct, absent any evidence in the record which would indicate to the contrary.” Steinhoff v. Steinhoff, 03-24, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/30/03), 843 So.2d 1290, 1294. Moreover, appellate courts generally will not consider issues that were not addressed by the trial court and which are raised for the first time on appeal. Mendoza v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., LP., 46,438 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/22/11), 77 So.3d 18, writ denied, 11-1918 (La.11/14/11), 75 So.3d 943.

┴4 Montgomery v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12-320, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/14/12), 103 So.3d 1222, 1229, writ denied, 12-2711 (La.2/8/13), 108 So.3d 91.

After thorough review of the record, we can find no indication that Allen presented argument to the WCJ that it erred in assigning multiple docket numbers to his claim before asserting this error on appeal. Accordingly, we will not consider Allen’s first assignment of error. See Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3.

Allen next contends that the WCJ erred in dismissing all of his claims without a hearing or evidence that all of his claims should be dismissed. He contends that the order of dismissal signed by the WCJ is overbroad and includes claims that were not subject to the satisfaction of judgment that he filed after AHF paid the June 18, 2012 judgment. Because Allen fears that the order of dismissal is unclear and could later be interpreted to include prior judgments and orders issued by the WCJ, he requests that this court limit the dismissal to the June 18, 2012 judgment.

On the other hand, AHF submits that the order is clear in that it “reserv[es] all other disputes between the parties.” It further contends that the WCJ handwrote the phrase “all claims subject to” into the order of dismissal “to very specifically tailor the effect” of the judgment and to eliminate any confusion concerning the use of multiple docket numbers in this case. According to AHF, each workers’ compensation dispute is given a separate docket number in order to make any judgment resolving that dispute appealable. Thus, AHF contends that it was proper for the WCJ to close the docket numbers that Allen listed on the satisfaction of judgment because those disputes were resolved. Finally, as a practical matter, | BAHF submits that it is necessary for each dispute that is the subject of a Form 1008 Disputed Claim for Compensation to be closed because the counsel assigned to defend that dispute may no longer be counsel of record and, thus, should not continue to receive and be responsible for responding to time-sensitive demands when no dispute is pending before the OWC.

Allen asserts that the order of dismissal should have been limited to the June 18, 2012 judgment which awarded him penalties and attorney fees and for which he provided a satisfaction of judgment. The appellate record indicates that Allen’s motion for penalties and attorney fees, the judgment on the motion for penalties and attorney fees, the satisfaction of judgment signed by Allen’s attorney, and AHF’s motion to dismiss each contained all three docket numbers. In addition, the order of dismissal references the satisfaction of judgment and specifically “re-serv[es] all other disputes between the parties.”

While Allen now complains that the judgment of dismissal is ambiguous and that the insertion of the phrase “all claims subject to” serves to broaden the possible effect of the dismissal, he did not file a motion for new trial or for clarification of the judgment. Because Allen failed to raise the issue of possible ambiguity in the judgment before the WCJ, we will not consider this aspect of his second assignment of error for the first time on appeal. See Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3.

This court has held that the “WCJ possesses inherent authority to determine whether the judgments he renders have been satisfied.” Derouen, 23 So.3d at 392. A logical corollary to that authority is the additional authority of a WCJ to render a judgment of dismissal when it is presented with a satisfaction of a judgment. As | swe previously noted, “The judgment of the trial court is presumed correct, absent any evidence in the record which would indicate to thé contrary.” Montgomery, 103 So.3d at 1229 (quoting Steinhoff, 843 So.2d at 1294). Allen has not pointed to any record evidence to indicate any error in the judgment of dismissal. In fact, the evidence fully supports the judgment of dismissal rendered by the WCJ. Accordingly, the August 21, 2012 judgment is affirmed in its entirety.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of dismissal is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against Juan Carlos Allen.

AFFIRMED.

COOKS, J., dissents in part and assigns written reasons.

COOKS, J.,

dissenting.

hi respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority’s opinion that refuses to consider the Claimant’s assignment of error asserting the WCJ’s order of dismissal is overbroad and could possible serve to dismiss claims that were not subject to the Satisfaction of Judgment filed after AHF paid the June 18, 2012 judgment. The justification for the majority’s refusal to consider this assignment of error is that “[bjecause Allen failed to raise the issue of possible ambiguity in the judgment before the WCJ, we will not consider this aspect of his second assignment of error for the first time on appeal.” I find this court most certainly has the authority to consider this issue on appeal, and feel it is an abrogation of our duty to simply dismiss Claimant’s argument.

Contrary to the Louisiana Constitution Article 5, section 10 (emphasis added) sets forth an appellate court’s scope of review of administrative agency proceedings as follows:

(B) Scope of Review. Except as limited to questions of law by this constitution, or as provided by law in the review of administrative agency determinations, appellate jurisdiction of a court of appeal extends to law and facts. In the review of an administrative agency determination in a worker’s compensation matter, a court of appeal may render judgment as provided by law, or, in the interest of justice, remand the matter to the administrative agency for further proceedings. In criminal cases its appellate jurisdiction extends only to questions of law.

|2Any concerns the majority might have as to the record being inadequate to amend the judgment, is not, in my view, a valid basis for an outright rejection of Claimant’s assignment of error. As set forth above, La. Const. art. 5, § 10(B) specifically grants the appellate courts the authority to, “in the interest of justice, remand the matter to the administrative agency for further proceedings.” Therefore, rather than dismissing Claimant’s assignment of error because of a lack of clarity as to what went on below at the administrative agency level, it would seem both prudent and fair to, at a minimum, remand the case back to the Office of Workers’ Compensation for further proceedings.

I find reasonable Claimant’s concerns that the Order of Dismissal is unclear, overbroad and could be interpreted to exclude future claims and rulings by the WCJ. The Satisfaction of Judgment provided by Claimant to AHF was specific, and indicated that only the Judgment rendered on June 18, 2012 was “paid and satisfied.” AHF’s Motion to Dismiss stated that “all disputes in the above referenced docket numbers have been fully and completely resolved,” (emphasis added) and asked that the “above referenced docket numbers be dismissed, with prejudice, reserving all other disputes between the parties.” An Order of Dismissal was then signed by the WCJ ordering “that all claims subject to the above referenced docket numbers be and are hereby dismissed, with prejudice, reserving all other disputes between the parties.” The words “all claims subject to” was handwritten and inserted into the order. Claimant contends it objected to the order prior to its signing, and further notes there was no hearing on the order.

It is difficult to dispute Claimant’s argument that the Motion to Dismiss and Order of Dismissal are much broader than the Satisfaction of Judgment. The Satisfaction of Judgment only pertained to the penalties and attorney fees awarded for the failure to approve a memory foam mattress. Thus, the Claimant’s argument | ¡¡that the Order of Dismissal should have been limited to the June 18, 2012 judgment is compelling.

      . The judgment further provided that AHF pay a penalty of $3,700 and attorney fees of $5,000.

      . Docket numbers 03-07165, 06-06892, and 07-08002 were referenced at the top of the motion.

      .The docket numbers referenced on the motion to dismiss were the same three numbers that were referenced on the satisfaction of judgment.

      . In his brief to this court, counsel for Claimant contends the order "was signed even though an objection was made to the Order of Dismissal submitted to the workers' compensation judge." The record before us, however, does not include any objection made.


author: STEPHEN J. WINDHORST, Judge.

text:
    In re SUCCESSION OF Sara BOADA.
    No. 13-CA-234.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 19, 2013.
    Frank Sloan, Attorney at Law, Mande-ville, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
    Richard R. Schulze, Attorney at Law, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
    Panel composed of Judges ROBERT A. CHAISSON, STEPHEN J. WINDHORST and HANS J. LILJEBERG.
   STEPHEN J. WINDHORST, Judge.

|2Appellant, Alvaro Boada, appeals the trial court’s judgment finding the olo-graphic will valid and granting the petition for probate and possession. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sara Boada, decedent, was admitted to Ochsner Medical Center from July 18, 2011 through July 25, 2011, where she was diagnosed with abdominal neoplasm, a cancerous growth in her abdomen. A decision was made not to operate and she was sent home with hospice care. She died on September 2, 2011, at the age of 90 years old.

On October 8, 2011, Alvaro Boada, decedent’s son, filed a petition requesting notice of application for appointment of succession representative. On January 6, 2012, Clemencia Boada filed a petition for probate and possession. The petition claimed that decedent died testate on September 2, 2011, in the Parish of Jefferson. The petition further claimed that decedent’s olographic will dated July 24, 2011, left all of decedent’s property to her daughter, Clemencia Boada. A rule to show cause why the olographic will should not be probated was set for hearing on February 10, 2012. On January 10, 2012, Mr. Boada filed an answer opposing the petition for probate and possession. Additionally, Mr. Boada filed an |,.¡opposition contending that the olographic will is illegible and thus, invalid. He further claimed that questions of fact exist concerning testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The trial court rendered judgment on February 10, 2012, finding that the olo-graphic will was legible and valid and thus, granted the petition for probate. The trial court held open the issues concerning testamentary capacity and undue influence and the matter was set for August 1, 2012.

After the hearing on August 1, 2012, the trial court again found that the olographic will was legible. The trial court found that “[wjhile there are portions of it that are difficult to discern, the overall intent of the will is clear that the — Ms. Boada wanted to leave all of her. possessions, all of her earthly possessions to her daughter, Cle-mencia Boada.” The trial court further found that Mr. Boada failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence and granted the petition for possession. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An appellate court may not set aside factual determinations made by the trier of fact absent manifest error or unless clearly wrong. In re Succession of Horrell, 11-1574 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/11/12), 102 So.3d 189, 142; In re Succession of Lovoi, 00-1391 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/00), 777 So.2d 627, 628; Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989). When evidence is presented which reasonably supports the findings of fact, then those findings of fact may not be. set aside, even if the reviewing court may have made different findings had it been sitting as the trier of fact. In re Succession of Lovoi, 777 So.2d at 628-629. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. In re Succession of Horrell, 102 So.3d at 142-143, eiting Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330, 1333 (La.1978).

^DISCUSSION

In his only assignment of error, Mr. Boada contends that the trial court erred in finding that the olographic will was legible and thus, valid. Mr. Boada claims that because the will is illegible, there is no way to determine from the document itself what bequests of property, if any, are included.

To be valid, an olographic will must be entirely written, dated, and signed in the handwriting of the testator. La. C.C. art. 1575; Succession of Aycock, 02-0701 (La.5/24/02), 819 So.2d 290, 290. The only additional requirement is that the document itself must evidence testamentary intent. In re Succession of Carroll, 09-219 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/8/09), 30 So.3d 11, 17. In the absence of testamentary intent there is no will. Id,.; Succession of Gourgis, 08-430 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/12/08), 1 So.3d 528, 533. Extrinsic or parole evidence cannot be used to establish testamentary intent. In re Succession of Carroll, 30 So.3d at 17.

The document submitted for probate consists of one page and contains two sections. The top section contains what purports to be decedent’s Last Will and Testament and is entirely written, dated and signed by the decedent. The bottom section is a re-printed version of the top section, written by Clemencia Boada, signed by decedent, and witnessed by two individuals. It is undisputed by the parties that the bottom section is not a part of the will and is not at issue on appeal.

In reviewing the olographic will, we find that while some words are indecipherable, the majority of the document is legible and evidences a clear intent by the decedent to leave all of her earthly possessions to her daughter, Clemencia Boada. Accordingly, we do not find that the trial court was manifestly erroneous |fior clearly wrong in finding that the olographic will was legible and thus, valid, and in granting the petition to probate.

CONCLUSION:

Considering the above stated reasons, the trial court’s judgment finding the olo-graphic will valid and granting the petition for probate and possession is affirmed. Costs are assessed against appellant.

AFFIRMED.

      . Mr. Boada did not designate as error or brief the issues concerning testamentary capacity or undue influence. Accordingly, we find that he has abandoned any assignment of error regarding those issues. La. U.R.C.A. 2-12.4.

      . Mr. Boada does not contend that the purported olographic will is not in proper form.


text:
    Jose MENDEZ v. REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (TMSEL) and Hammerman & Gainer, Inc.
    No. 13-CA-297.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 19, 2013.

      Jose R. Mendez, Sr., Waggaman, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellant, In Proper Person.
    Craig B. Mitchell, Michael S. Rodriquez, Attorneys at Law, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Defendant/Appellee.
    Panel composed of Judges ROBERT A. CHAISSON, ROBERT M. MURPHY and STEPHEN J. WINDHORST.
   STEPHEN J. WINDHORST, Judge.

| ¡..Claimant, Jose Mendez, appeals from a judgment rendered by the workers’ compensation court finding that Mendez failed to prove that his psoriatic arthritis was caused by his work-related accident, and therefore, he was not entitled to compensation for his condition. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the Office of Workers Compensation (OWC).

Mendez was employed by the Regional Transit Authority, TMSEL. He started working for the Transit Authority in December of 1978. In October of 1993, Mendez injured his back while lifting a power brake. He continued to work until August of 1998, when he underwent a disc fusion. A second surgery was performed in October of 1999. From the time of the accident and continuing up to trial, Mendez was also treated with medications and therapy for the back injury and also for anxiety which was caused by his medical condition. Mendez has not returned to work since his surgeries and he remains disabled to date.

Mendez testified that in 1994 or 1995, he started noticing a skin rash. Over time, it worsened and caused big lesions on his body. Mendez stated that when he was fatigued or had back pain, the rash would flare up and get worse. For years, |3he was treated by a dermatologist for psoriasis. Eventually, it was discovered that his condition was caused by psoriatic arthritis.

In June of 2007, Mendez began treatment with Dr. Paul Hubbell, a pain management specialist. Dr. Hubbell opined that claimant’s psoriatic arthritis was not related to his work injury. However, he would defer to a rheumatologist as to its cause.

In early 2010, at Mendez’s request, Dr. Hubbell referred him to Dr. Espinoza, a rheumatologist. Dr. Espinoza took over treatment of claimant for both his psoriatic arthritis and his back pain, and this continued to the time of trial. Mendez’s treatment consists of Remicade administered through IV every 8 weeks for his psoriatic arthritis and pain medication for both. Mendez testified that his psoriatic arthritis is under control when he stays on the Remicade. Dr. Espinoza stated in his deposition that he believed that Mendez’s work-related injury caused his psoriatic arthritis to become more symptomatic. However, he also admitted that there were no objective findings to support this conclusion. Dr. Espinoza also admitted that he was not familiar with the circumstances and effects of Mendez’s work-related accident and claimant’s prior history.

Dr. Nejeeb Thomas, a neurologist, conducted a medical exam of Mendez at defendant’s request. Dr. Thomas concluded that Mendez’s main problem was pain, and that he would likely need pain management for the rest of his life. Dr. Thomas also stated that Mendez would need treatment for his psoriatic arthritis, which was unrelated to his workers’ compensation injuries.

In this appeal, Mendez contends that the OWC erred in failing to find that his work-related accident either caused or aggravated his psoriatic arthritis. He also requests penalties and attorney’s fees, claiming that the workers’ compensation carrier was arbitrary and capricious in its failure to pay.

14An injured employee is entitled to receive benefits for an injury that arises out of and in the course of his employment. La. R.S. 23:1031. In Hills v. McDonald’s, 12-673 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/27/13), 112 So.3d 956, 960, we stated that:

The injured employee (the claimant) bears the initial burden of establishing the causal connection between his disability and the employment accident by a preponderance of the evidence. The claimant is not required to establish the exact cause of the disability; however, the claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of proof that the accident had a causal connection with the disability. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence exists when the evidence, taken as a whole, shows the facts sought to be proved are more probable than not.

In the case before us, the OWC judge found that claimant, Mendez, had not met his burden of proof. In her reasons for judgment she evaluated the evidence of two of Mendez’s treating physicians, and found that the opinions of both physicians were speculative. Mendez’s pain management physician, Dr. Hubbell, stated that he did not find Mendez’s condition related to his injury, but that he would defer to a rheumatologist, who was an expert in that field. Mendez’s rheumatologist, Dr. Espinoza, found that the condition was work-related, but he admitted that he did not have initial medical records, so he did not know of Mendez’s condition prior to his treatment. The OWC judge also considered the opinion of Dr. Thomas, who evaluated Mendez’s medical condition. She found Dr. Thomas’ opinion “quite clear; he said that the psoriatic arthritis was unrelated to the workers’ compensation injuries.”

In a workers’ compensation case, as in other cases, the appellate court’s review is governed by the manifest error or clearly wrong standard. Hotard v. Murphy, Rogers, Sloss & Gambel, 11-1143 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/31/12), 97 So.3d 407, 411. Accordingly, the findings of the OWC will not be set aside by a reviewing court unless they are found to be clearly wrong in light of the record viewed in its entirety. Whetstone v. Jefferson Parish Sch. Bd., 12-639 (La.App. 5 5Cir. 5/30/13), 117 So.3d 566, 569. Even though an appellate court may feel its own evaluations and inferences are more reasonable than those of the trier of fact, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review where conflict exists in the testimony. Dawson v. Terrebonne Gen. Med. Ctr., 10-2130 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/19/11), 69 So.3d 622, 627. If the findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, an appellate court may not reverse even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Hills, supra at 961. Consequently, when there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact-finder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous. Temple v. Global Const., 13-38 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/23/13), 119 So.3d 704, 708.

Furthermore,

Experts’ testimony may be given different weights depending on their qualifications and the facts upon which their opinions are based. For example, the general jurisprudential rules are that a treating physician’s opinion is given more weight than a non-treating physician, and the testimony of a specialist is entitled to greater weight than a general practitioner. The trial court, however, is not bound to accept the testimony of an expert whose testimony is presumptively given more weight if he finds the opinion is less credible than that of other experts. As the supreme court explained in Middle Tennessee Council v. Ford, 274 So.2d 173, 177 (La.1973):
The weight to be given to the testimony of experts is largely dependent upon their qualifications and the facts upon which their opinions are based. However, the sincerity and honesty of the opinions expressed are matters which the trial judge is in a particularly advantageous position to determine. It is, in effect, in part, a question of credibility, and when the experts are widely disparate in their conclusions, the rule has special relevance.

Dawson v. Terrebonne Gen. Med. Ctr., 2010-2130 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/19/11), 69 So.3d 622, 627 (citing Ponthier v. Vulcan Foundry, Inc., 95-1343 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/23/96), 668 So.2d 1315, 1317.)

| (¡In this case, the OWC judge specifically stated that Dr. Espinoza’s opinion as to the cause of claimant’s psoriatic arthritis was ambivalent and that his testimony was speculative and not definitive. She further found credible the opinion of Dr. Thomas, stating that his opinion was “quite clear” that the condition was not caused by the work-related injury. As a result, she ruled that Mendez had not borne his burden of proof. Based on the record before us, we do not find manifest error, or conclude that the OWC was clearly wrong in its determination that Mendez failed to carry his burden of proving that his psoriatic arthritis was casually connected to his prior work-related accident.

For the above discussed reasons, the ruling of the OWC finding that claimant’s, Jose Mendez’s, psoriatic arthritis is not compensable, and that he was not entitled to attorney’s fees and penalties, is affirmed. Each party is assessed with its own costs.

AFFIRMED.