<div style="max-width:90%;"><p style="text-align:center;margin-bottom:0;"><img alt="Associate Justice Greg G. Guidry resigned from the Louisiana Supreme Court, effective June 22, 2019, so that he could assume his appointment by the President of the United States as a Federal Judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana . Prior to his resignation he cast his votes on opinions, writ applications and rehearing applications considered at conference on Thursday, June 20, 2019. Those decisions are dated and are being released Wednesday, June 26, 2019." class="img-responsive" src="/news_releases/2019/Guidry_Votes_Prior_to_Retirement.jpg" style="max-width:1000px;max-width:100%;text-align:center;align:center;border:solid;border-width:thin;object-fit:contain;" /></p><p style="text-align:right;margin-top:0;"><a href="/news_releases/2019/Guidry_Votes_Prior_to_Retirement.pdf" target="_blank">Download Letter (pdf)</a></p></div><p>&nbsp;</p><table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" style="" width="90%"><tbody style=""><tr style="" valign="top"><td valign="top" width="63%">FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE</td><td valign="top" width="37%"><div align="right">NEWS RELEASE #027</div></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td style="" valign="top">FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA</td><td valign="top">&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The Opinions handed down on the <strong><span style="text-decoration:underline;">26th day of June, 2019</span></strong>, are as follows:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration:underline;">BY CLARK, J.</span></strong>:</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/17-2084.K.OPN.pdf">2017-K-2084&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DAVID LEGER</a> (Parish of E. Baton Rouge)<br />We granted certiorari in this case to review a judgment of the First Circuit Court of Appeal that modified defendant David Leger&rsquo;s five vehicular homicide convictions to negligent homicide, vacated his sentences and remanded for resentencing.&nbsp; Specifically, we consider whether the state presented sufficient evidence that defendant&rsquo;s intoxication was a contributing factor to the fatal accident, as provided in La. R.S. 14:32.1.&nbsp; After reviewing the applicable law and the evidence, we find the state proved by sufficient evidence that defendant&rsquo;s intoxication was a contributing factor to the fatal accident, and, thus, vacate the court of appeal judgment, reinstate the trial court judgment, and remand for the court of appeal to consider the pretermitted assignments of error. <br />VACATE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT; REINSTATE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT; AND REMAND.</p><p>HUGHES, J., dissents with reasons.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration:underline;">PER CURIAM</span></strong>:</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/12-0508.KA.OPN.pdf">2012-KA-0508&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;STATE OF LOUISIANA&nbsp; v. JEFFREY CLARK</a> (Parish of West Feliciana)<br />The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to remand for further consideration in light of McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. &mdash;, 138 S.Ct. 1500, &mdash; L.Ed.2d &mdash; (2018). With the benefit of additional briefing and oral argument, and after further consideration, we again affirm appellant&rsquo;s conviction and sentence.<br />AFFIRMED.</p><p>Retired Judge Hillary Crain appointed Justice ad hoc, sitting for Justice Crichton, recused. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/17-0649.KP.OPN.pdf">2017-KP-0649&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;STATE OF LOUISIANA&nbsp; v. DARRELL TOUBYA THOMAS</a> (Parish of Caddo)<br />Accordingly, we find the district court erred in failing to correctly apply the deferential Strickland standard. Therefore, we vacate the district court&rsquo;s ruling that granted defendant a new trial, and we reinstate the conviction and sentence.<br />VACATED.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/18-0006.K.OPN.pdf">2018-K-0006&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;STATE OF LOUISIANA v. BRIAN MICHAEL HUGHES</a> (Parish of Grant)<br />The state established the chain of custody at trial and the jury could reasonably conclude that the substance seized from the defendant was the substance tested by the crime lab and introduced as evidence at trial, the discrepancy in the weights notwithstanding. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeal&rsquo;s decision, which found merit in defendant&rsquo;s sole assignment of error and vacated the conviction. Because we find the court of appeal erred in its analysis of defendant&rsquo;s sole contention on appeal, we reinstate the conviction and sentence, which are hereby affirmed.<br />REVERSED.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/18-1105.C.OPN.pdf">2018-C-1105&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C/W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2018-C-1115&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;STANLEY R. PALOWSKY, III, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. v. ALLYSON CAMPBELL, ET AL.</a> (Parish of Ouachita)<br />For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed insofar as it dismisses plaintiff&rsquo;s claims against the defendant judges with prejudice. The exception of no cause of action filed by these defendants is hereby denied. In all other respects, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. <br />REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.</p><p>Retired Judge Michael Kirby appointed Justice ad hoc, sitting for Justice Clark, recused.</p><p>JOHNSON, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons.<br />WEIMER, J., concurs and assigns reasons.<br />GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br />CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br />KIRBY, J., concurs and assigns reasons.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/18-1518.KK.OPN.pdf">2018-KK-1518&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;STATE OF LOUISIANA v. KELLY FOLSE</a> (Parish of Jefferson)<br />On this record, we cannot say whether defendant merely acquiesced to a claim of lawful authority, see Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548&ndash;550, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1792, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968), or validly consented to provide her passcode in exchange for the phone. We are also unable from this record to determine whether the officer acted reasonably in good faith, as urged by the State, or the police conduct was coercive and indicative of bad faith, as the court of appeal found. Therefore, rather than rule on the merits of such significant questions on a deficient record, we reverse the court of appeal, and we remand to the district court to conduct further evidentiary proceedings, after which the district court is directed to reconsider whether the evidence ought to be suppressed.<br />REVERSED AND REMANDED.</p><p>WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br />GENOVESE, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Justice Weimer.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/18-1646.B.OPN.pdf">2018-B-1646&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IN RE: PATRICK A. GIRAUD</a><br />Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, briefs, and oral argument, it is ordered that Patrick A. Giraud, Louisiana Bar Roll number 29877, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day.&nbsp; It is further ordered that all but six months of the suspension shall be deferred.&nbsp; Following the active portion of the suspension, respondent shall be placed on unsupervised probation for a period of two years.&nbsp; The probationary period shall be governed by the conditions set forth in this opinion and shall commence when respondent and the ODC execute a formal probation plan.&nbsp; Any failure of respondent to comply with these conditions, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.&nbsp; All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, &sect; 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court&rsquo;s judgment until paid.</p><p>WEIMER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons.<br />CLARK, J., dissents in part and concurs in part for the reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.<br />HUGHES, J., concurs with reasons.<br />CRICHTON, J., dissents in part, concurs in part and assigns reasons.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/18-1746.C.OPN.pdf">2018-C-1746&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SHERRY BOOTHE AND BARRY BOOTHE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN, AMBER AND AMANDA BOOTHE v. STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT AND PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE</a> (Parish of E. Baton Rouge)<br />In this matter, we are called upon to decide whether the district court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the plaintiff and in awarding damages. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the granting of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but amend the judgment with respect to damages. <br />AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.</p><p>HUGHES, J., dissents in part with reasons.<br />CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/18-2042.C.OPN.pdf">2018-C-2042&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;KEVIN E. BIAS v. LOUISIANA PHYSICAL THERAPY BOARD</a> (Parish of Lafayette)<br />In this case, we are called upon to decide whether a regulatory board has authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings when there is a vacancy in its statutorily-mandated composition. For the reasons that follow, we find the court of appeal erred in finding the board's actions were invalid because it was not lawfully constituted at the time of its actions in this case. <br />REVERSED AND REMANDED.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/19-0030.C.OPN.pdf">2019-C-0030&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;TERRY GOTCH v. SCOOBY'S ASAP TOWING, LLC, ET AL.</a> (Parish of Lafayette)<br />In this case, we are called upon to determine whether the district court erred in denying plaintiff's request for a mistrial based on evidence that the jurors violated their instructions by discussing the case prior to deliberations. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a mistrial. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeal and reinstate the district court's judgment. <br />REVERSED.</p><p>JOHNSON, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br />HUGHES, J., dissents with reasons.<br />GENOVESE, J., dissents and assigns reasons.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/19-0040.C.OPN.pdf">2019-C-0040&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ELIZABETH SOILEAU v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.</a><br />In this workers' compensation matter, we are presented with the question of whether an employee's motion to compel her employer to choose a pharmacy other than the pharmacy at its retail stores to fill her prescriptions is premature in the absence of any claim that she has not been furnished proper medical attention or that there have been delays or deficiencies in filling prescriptions. For the reasons that follow, we find the matter is premature and does not present a justiciable controversy. We therefore vacate the judgment of the court of appeal. <br />VACATED.</p><p>JOHNSON, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br />HUGHES, J., dissents with reasons.<br />GENOVESE, J., dissents and assigns reasons.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="../../opinions/2019/18-0950.C.OPN.pdf">2018-C-0950&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C/W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2018-C-0956&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&amp;T OFFSHORE, L.L.C. v. TEXAS BRINE CORPORATION AND TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, L.L.C.&nbsp; C/W&nbsp; TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, L.L.C. v. W&amp;T OFFSHORE, L.L.C.</a> (Parish of Lafourche)<br />The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed insofar as it held Texas Brine Corporation and Texas Brine Company, L.L.C. committed a trespass and were liable for damages.&nbsp; The judgment of the district court dismissing W&amp;T Offshore, L.L.C.&rsquo;s trespass and damage claims with prejudice is reinstated.&nbsp; In all other respects, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed. <br />REVERSED IN PART.</p><p>JOHNSON, C.J., dissents.<br />WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br />CLARK, J., dissents.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>