James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown
Headline: Court Rules Against Plaintiffs in Failed Dental Practice Dispute
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Investors in a failed dental practice lost their fraud and breach of contract claims because they couldn't prove justifiable reliance or a breach.
- Document all representations made during business negotiations.
- Conduct thorough due diligence before investing.
- Ensure all agreements are clearly written and understood.
Case Summary
James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown, decided by Louisiana Supreme Court on May 9, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. This case concerns a dispute over a failed business venture involving a dental practice. The plaintiffs, Dr. James McCormick and Kim Morris McCormick, alleged that the defendants, Joe E. Ford, Jr., William Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown, engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract related to their investment in the practice. The court ultimately found in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims of fraud and breach of contract. The court held: The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims of fraudulent misrepresentation. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not prove that the defendants made false representations of material fact with the intent to deceive, nor that they reasonably relied on such representations to their detriment.. The appellate court upheld the trial court's finding that there was no breach of contract. The court determined that the agreements between the parties did not contain the specific terms the plaintiffs alleged were breached, and the evidence did not establish a violation of any contractual obligations.. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings, finding that the excluded evidence was either irrelevant or cumulative and did not prejudice the plaintiffs' case.. The appellate court found no merit in the plaintiffs' claims of judicial error in the application of legal standards, concluding that the trial court correctly applied the relevant law to the facts presented.. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against certain defendants where the plaintiffs failed to establish personal liability or direct involvement in the alleged fraudulent conduct or contractual breaches.. This decision underscores the difficulty plaintiffs face in proving fraud, particularly in complex business disputes where clear intent to deceive and detrimental reliance must be unequivocally demonstrated. It serves as a reminder for parties entering into business ventures to ensure all agreements are clearly documented and understood to avoid future litigation.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Court Syllabus
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
If you invested in a business and it failed, you might think the other party defrauded you or broke a deal. However, courts require strong proof. In this case, investors couldn't prove they were tricked or that a contract was broken, so their lawsuit failed. You need to show you reasonably relied on false statements and suffered damages.
For Legal Practitioners
This opinion reinforces the high burden of proof for fraud and breach of contract claims, particularly in the context of business ventures. The court's emphasis on justifiable reliance and the McCormicks' failure to present sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment highlights the need for robust factual support and clear contractual terms when litigating such disputes.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the elements required to prove fraud and breach of contract. The McCormicks' failure to demonstrate justifiable reliance on alleged misrepresentations and their inability to prove a breach of contract led to summary judgment for the defendants. Pay attention to how the court analyzes the evidence in relation to each element.
Newsroom Summary
A lawsuit over a failed dental practice has been dismissed, with a court ruling that investors did not prove fraud or breach of contract. The investors failed to show they reasonably relied on any false statements or that the other parties broke their agreement.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims of fraudulent misrepresentation. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not prove that the defendants made false representations of material fact with the intent to deceive, nor that they reasonably relied on such representations to their detriment.
- The appellate court upheld the trial court's finding that there was no breach of contract. The court determined that the agreements between the parties did not contain the specific terms the plaintiffs alleged were breached, and the evidence did not establish a violation of any contractual obligations.
- The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings, finding that the excluded evidence was either irrelevant or cumulative and did not prejudice the plaintiffs' case.
- The appellate court found no merit in the plaintiffs' claims of judicial error in the application of legal standards, concluding that the trial court correctly applied the relevant law to the facts presented.
- The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against certain defendants where the plaintiffs failed to establish personal liability or direct involvement in the alleged fraudulent conduct or contractual breaches.
Key Takeaways
- Document all representations made during business negotiations.
- Conduct thorough due diligence before investing.
- Ensure all agreements are clearly written and understood.
- Seek legal counsel to understand your rights and obligations.
- Be prepared to prove justifiable reliance and damages in court.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
The standard of review is abuse of discretion for the trial court's rulings on discovery matters and de novo for the legal conclusions regarding fraud and breach of contract. The appellate court reviews the trial court's decisions to determine if they were legally correct.
Procedural Posture
This case reached the appellate court after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Joe E. Ford, Jr., William Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown, dismissing the claims of fraud and breach of contract brought by the plaintiffs, Dr. James McCormick and Kim Morris McCormick, related to a failed dental practice venture.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof for fraud and breach of contract rests with the plaintiffs, Dr. James McCormick and Kim Morris McCormick. They must prove their claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The standard for summary judgment is whether there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Legal Tests Applied
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Elements: A false representation of a material fact · Knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth · Intent to induce reliance · Justifiable reliance by the plaintiff · Resulting damages
The court found that the McCormicks failed to present sufficient evidence to establish justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentations by the defendants regarding the financial health or future prospects of the dental practice. The evidence showed the McCormicks had access to financial information and conducted their own due diligence.
Breach of Contract
Elements: Existence of a valid contract · Plaintiff's performance or excuse for non-performance · Defendant's breach of the contract · Damages resulting from the breach
The court determined that the McCormicks did not prove a breach of contract. The agreements between the parties were complex, and the McCormicks failed to demonstrate how the defendants' actions constituted a breach of the specific terms of the agreements, particularly in light of the plaintiffs' own actions and the nature of the business venture.
Statutory References
| La. R.S. 14:134 | False accounting — This statute was cited in relation to allegations of financial impropriety, though the court ultimately found insufficient evidence to support claims based on it. |
| La. C.C. art. 1953 | Fraud — This article defines fraud as a misrepresentation or suppression of the truth made with the intention to obtain an unjust advantage over the other party. The court applied this definition to the McCormicks' fraud claim. |
| La. C.C. art. 2046 | Interpretation of Contract — This article governs the interpretation of contracts when the words are susceptible to different meanings. The court considered this in analyzing the parties' contractual obligations. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
The McCormicks failed to present sufficient evidence to establish justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentations by the defendants.
The evidence presented by the McCormicks was insufficient to establish that the defendants breached the contract.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Document all representations made during business negotiations.
- Conduct thorough due diligence before investing.
- Ensure all agreements are clearly written and understood.
- Seek legal counsel to understand your rights and obligations.
- Be prepared to prove justifiable reliance and damages in court.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You invest money in a friend's new business, and it quickly goes bankrupt. You believe your friend lied about the business's financial stability to get your investment.
Your Rights: You have the right to sue for fraud or breach of contract if you can prove your friend made false statements, knew they were false, intended for you to rely on them, you reasonably relied on them, and you suffered damages as a result.
What To Do: Gather all communications, financial records, and agreements related to the investment. Consult with an attorney to assess the strength of your claims, focusing on evidence of false statements and your justifiable reliance.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal to sue someone for losing your investment money?
Depends. You can sue if you can prove the loss was due to illegal actions like fraud (intentional deception) or breach of contract (failure to uphold an agreement), and that you suffered damages as a direct result of those actions.
This applies generally, but specific laws and proof requirements vary by jurisdiction.
Practical Implications
For Small business investors
This ruling underscores the difficulty in proving fraud or breach of contract claims when investing in businesses. Investors must be prepared to demonstrate not only that misrepresentations were made but also that they reasonably relied on those statements and suffered quantifiable damages.
For Business owners facing lawsuits
This case provides a defense strategy for business owners accused of fraud or breach of contract. By showing that investors had access to information, conducted their own due diligence, or that the alleged breaches were not material, owners can potentially defeat claims at the summary judgment stage.
Related Legal Concepts
Intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim ... Breach of Contract
Failure to perform any term of a contract without a legitimate excuse. Summary Judgment
A decision made by a judge that resolves a lawsuit without a full trial. Due Diligence
The investigation or exercise of care that a reasonable business or person is ex...
Frequently Asked Questions (34)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (9)
Q: What is James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown about?
James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown is a case decided by Louisiana Supreme Court on May 9, 2025.
Q: What court decided James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown?
James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown was decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which is part of the LA state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown decided?
James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown was decided on May 9, 2025.
Q: Who were the judges in James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown?
The judges in James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown: Griffin, J..
Q: What is the citation for James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown?
The citation for James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What were the main claims in McCormick v. Ford?
The McCormicks claimed the defendants committed fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract related to their investment in a dental practice. They alleged the defendants misled them about the business's financial health.
Q: Who were the parties in this case?
The plaintiffs were Dr. James McCormick and Kim Morris McCormick. The defendants were Joe E. Ford, Jr., William Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown.
Q: What was the outcome of the case?
The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, meaning the McCormicks' claims were dismissed before trial because they failed to present sufficient evidence.
Q: What does 'summary judgment' mean in this context?
Summary judgment means the judge decided that, based on the evidence presented, there were no significant factual disputes, and the defendants were legally entitled to win without a trial.
Legal Analysis (11)
Q: Is James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown published?
James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown. Key holdings: The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims of fraudulent misrepresentation. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not prove that the defendants made false representations of material fact with the intent to deceive, nor that they reasonably relied on such representations to their detriment.; The appellate court upheld the trial court's finding that there was no breach of contract. The court determined that the agreements between the parties did not contain the specific terms the plaintiffs alleged were breached, and the evidence did not establish a violation of any contractual obligations.; The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings, finding that the excluded evidence was either irrelevant or cumulative and did not prejudice the plaintiffs' case.; The appellate court found no merit in the plaintiffs' claims of judicial error in the application of legal standards, concluding that the trial court correctly applied the relevant law to the facts presented.; The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against certain defendants where the plaintiffs failed to establish personal liability or direct involvement in the alleged fraudulent conduct or contractual breaches..
Q: Why is James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown important?
James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown has an impact score of 20/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision underscores the difficulty plaintiffs face in proving fraud, particularly in complex business disputes where clear intent to deceive and detrimental reliance must be unequivocally demonstrated. It serves as a reminder for parties entering into business ventures to ensure all agreements are clearly documented and understood to avoid future litigation.
Q: What precedent does James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown set?
James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown established the following key holdings: (1) The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims of fraudulent misrepresentation. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not prove that the defendants made false representations of material fact with the intent to deceive, nor that they reasonably relied on such representations to their detriment. (2) The appellate court upheld the trial court's finding that there was no breach of contract. The court determined that the agreements between the parties did not contain the specific terms the plaintiffs alleged were breached, and the evidence did not establish a violation of any contractual obligations. (3) The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings, finding that the excluded evidence was either irrelevant or cumulative and did not prejudice the plaintiffs' case. (4) The appellate court found no merit in the plaintiffs' claims of judicial error in the application of legal standards, concluding that the trial court correctly applied the relevant law to the facts presented. (5) The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against certain defendants where the plaintiffs failed to establish personal liability or direct involvement in the alleged fraudulent conduct or contractual breaches.
Q: What are the key holdings in James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown?
1. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims of fraudulent misrepresentation. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not prove that the defendants made false representations of material fact with the intent to deceive, nor that they reasonably relied on such representations to their detriment. 2. The appellate court upheld the trial court's finding that there was no breach of contract. The court determined that the agreements between the parties did not contain the specific terms the plaintiffs alleged were breached, and the evidence did not establish a violation of any contractual obligations. 3. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings, finding that the excluded evidence was either irrelevant or cumulative and did not prejudice the plaintiffs' case. 4. The appellate court found no merit in the plaintiffs' claims of judicial error in the application of legal standards, concluding that the trial court correctly applied the relevant law to the facts presented. 5. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against certain defendants where the plaintiffs failed to establish personal liability or direct involvement in the alleged fraudulent conduct or contractual breaches.
Q: What is fraudulent misrepresentation?
It's a legal claim requiring proof that someone made a false statement of a material fact, knew it was false, intended you to rely on it, you justifiably relied on it, and you suffered damages as a result.
Q: What is breach of contract?
This claim arises when one party fails to fulfill their obligations as outlined in a legally binding agreement without a valid excuse.
Q: Why did the McCormicks' fraud claim fail?
The court found the McCormicks did not provide enough evidence to show they justifiably relied on any alleged misrepresentations made by the defendants regarding the dental practice.
Q: Why did the McCormicks' breach of contract claim fail?
The McCormicks failed to prove that the defendants' actions constituted a breach of the specific terms of their agreements, especially considering the plaintiffs' own involvement and the nature of the business venture.
Q: What is 'justifiable reliance' in a fraud case?
It means that the person claiming fraud reasonably relied on the false statement, considering their own knowledge, experience, and the circumstances surrounding the statement.
Q: What evidence did the McCormicks present?
The opinion doesn't detail all evidence, but it indicates the McCormicks had access to financial information and conducted their own due diligence, which weakened their claim of justifiable reliance.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown affect me?
This decision underscores the difficulty plaintiffs face in proving fraud, particularly in complex business disputes where clear intent to deceive and detrimental reliance must be unequivocally demonstrated. It serves as a reminder for parties entering into business ventures to ensure all agreements are clearly documented and understood to avoid future litigation. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What should I do if I think I was defrauded in a business deal?
Gather all documentation, communications, and financial records. Consult with an attorney promptly to assess whether you can prove all the elements of fraud, especially justifiable reliance and damages.
Q: How can I protect myself when investing in a business?
Conduct thorough due diligence, review all financial statements, understand the business plan, and have a clear, written contract reviewed by an attorney before investing any money.
Q: What if the contract is unclear?
If a contract's terms are ambiguous, courts will try to interpret the parties' intent. However, unclear terms can make it difficult to prove a breach, so clarity is crucial.
Q: Can I sue if a business I invested in simply fails, even without fraud?
Generally, no. Business ventures carry inherent risks. You can typically only sue if you can prove specific wrongdoing like fraud or breach of contract, not just bad business outcomes.
Historical Context (2)
Q: What is the history of fraud claims in business disputes?
Claims of deception in business dealings have existed for centuries, evolving with commercial law to require specific elements like intent and reliance to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
Q: Are there specific laws about business fraud in Louisiana?
Yes, Louisiana law, like La. C.C. art. 1953, defines fraud and its elements, which must be proven for a successful claim.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown?
The docket number for James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown is 2024-C-01007. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What is the role of the appellate court in this case?
The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision (summary judgment) to ensure it applied the correct legal standards and that the McCormicks had a fair opportunity to present their case.
Q: What is the standard of review for fraud claims on appeal?
The appellate court reviews legal conclusions on fraud de novo, meaning they examine the case fresh, to ensure the law was applied correctly.
Case Details
| Case Name | James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown |
| Citation | |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-05-09 |
| Docket Number | 2024-C-01007 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 20 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision underscores the difficulty plaintiffs face in proving fraud, particularly in complex business disputes where clear intent to deceive and detrimental reliance must be unequivocally demonstrated. It serves as a reminder for parties entering into business ventures to ensure all agreements are clearly documented and understood to avoid future litigation. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Business Venture Disputes, Evidence Admissibility, Appellate Review of Trial Court Decisions |
| Jurisdiction | la |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of James McCormick, D.D.S., and Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. "Butch" Ford, Jr., William "Bill" Altimus, Jerome Darby, and Carlotta Askew-Brown was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Fraudulent Misrepresentation or from the Louisiana Supreme Court:
-
Edward F. Breaux, Jr.; Linda Breaux v. Kevin Ray Worrell; City of Wilson North Carolina; Travelers Indemnity Company, Incorrectly Named as Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company; Travelers Property Casualty Company of America C/W Jessie J. Blanchard; Vickie B. Blanchard v. Travelers Indemnity Company; Kevin Ray Worrell, City of Wilson North Carolina
Fourth Amendment Reasonableness and Bad Faith Insurance ClaimsLouisiana Supreme Court · 2026-04-10
-
Consolidated With 2025-C-00868 BEVERLY ALEXANDER; RISE ST. JAMES; INCLUSIVE LOUISIANA; AND MOUNT TRIUMPH BAPTIST CHURCH BY AND THROUGH THEIR MEMBERS v. ST. JAMES PARISH
Louisiana Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court Ruling in Favor of St. James Parish Against Environmental Groups and ResidentsLouisiana Supreme Court · 2026-03-06
-
Cynthia Bryan, Aubry Bryan, Jr., Aunya Bryan, and Glenda Bryan v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation as the Guarantor of the Insolvent Insurance Company, Southern Fidelity Insurance Company
Appellate Court Reverses Bad Faith Ruling Against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance, Vacates Penalties and Attorney FeesLouisiana Supreme Court · 2026-03-06
-
Esplanade Mall Realty Holdings, LLC v. Joseph P. Lopinto III, in His Capacity as Sheriff and Ex-Offico Tax Collector for Jefferson Parish
Mall's Property Tax Challenge Dismissed for Failing to Sue AssessorLouisiana Supreme Court · 2026-03-06
-
Ike Spears v. William W. Hall
City Attorney's Statements About Former Employee Found Privileged, Defamation Claim ReversedLouisiana Supreme Court · 2026-03-06
-
In Re: Judge Sheva Sims
Louisiana Supreme Court Removes Judge Sheva Sims from Office for Misconduct and Forfeits Retirement BenefitsLouisiana Supreme Court · 2026-03-06
-
Michael B. Reis, Jr. v. Mandy Pohlmann Reis
Appellate Court Affirms $1.2 Million Valuation of Husband's Business Interest in Community Property PartitionLouisiana Supreme Court · 2026-03-06
-
Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal District v. Tuan Nguyen
Appellate Court Reverses, Awards Land Ownership to Plaquemines Port Based on Valid 1969 Tax SaleLouisiana Supreme Court · 2026-03-06