Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
We all know that each U.S. citizen is entitled to certain rights contained within the Constitution. For example, the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, and the right to practice any form of religion. But what about rights that were not explicitly stated within the Constitution, like the right to privacy or the right to marry. Courts have long grappled with these “non-explicit rights” and whether those rights are protected under the Constitution. Recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals faced a question over a “non-explicit right.” Does an individual have the right to enter a public, government owned, building, and, if so, then what procedure is required to deny that right?
This controversy began when Carol Vincent became hostile during a visit to the bank. After threatening to kill a city councilman and the mayor of the City of Sulphur, Louisiana, city officials issued a no-trespass order against Mr. Vincent. The order prohibited Mr. Vincent from entering certain public official buildings, to prevent Mr. Vincent from coming into contact with whom he threatened to kill. Eventually, city officials dropped the order. A disgruntled Mr. Vincent sued, claiming that the city officials violated his constitutional rights.
The city officials asserted that they had qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials performing their duties from civil liability when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right, by prohibiting individuals from suing government officials over the performance of their duties. To disprove qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show whether a constitutional right was violated and whether the allegedly violated right was “clearly established.” McClendon v. City of Columbia, 305 F.3d 314, 322-23 (5th Cir. 2002). In determining whether a right is “clearly established,” courts look at whether a reasonable government official would be aware of the right. The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the government official is not entitled to qualified immunity. Wyatt v. Fletcher, 718 F.3d 496, 502 (5th Cir. 2013).
A 
Inherent in most insurance contracts is an insurer’s duty to defend its insured against certain lawsuits. Part of this duty requires the insurer to pay for all legal costs and other fees related to a particular lawsuit. In a commercial general liability (“CGL”) context, business owners often rely on an insurer’s duty to defend in order to avoid paying significant legal fees for defending actions which would ultimately be covered by a CGL policy. As one might expect, whether this duty to defend exists depends on whether the loss alleged in a lawsuit is within the scope of the policy’s coverage. As a recent Louisiana Appellate Court illustrates, it is very important that insureds understand the language of their CGL policies so as to know when a duty to defend exists.
The National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, was Congress’ approach to providing flood coverage at affordable rates. Generally, through the program homeowners can buy a Standard Flood Insurance Policy, or SFIP, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or from private insurers. According to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the SFIP outlines the conditions and requirements under which federal funds may be distributed to eligible policyholders. 
Whistleblowers play a controversial role in the United States. Without Mark Felt, also known as Deep Throat, the world would have never known about the corruptions in the Nixon Administration and without Edward Snowden, the world would have never known the extent of the NSA’s surveillance on both U.S. citizens and foreign individuals. Congress recognized the importance of whistleblowers when it passed the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act allows individuals to bring lawsuits (called a qui tam action) on behalf of the United States when an individual or entity defrauds the United States Government. See 
Is it cruel and unusual punishment for a prison to not provide an extra pillow and mattress to an injured prisoner?
Contractual relationships can advance or dissolve as time passes, often turning sour when promises are not kept. One or both parties may attempt to break the relationship but the underlying contract is not so easily terminated. As a result, the parties may find themselves in a court battle over seemingly small details. In this recent Louisiana case before the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, the presumably costly break-up came down to one little word. 
What if you are injured, hire a lawyer, and that lawyer fails to sufficiently work on your case? Outrage ensues and you may choose to fire that lawyer and hire a second. But is that first lawyer entitled to payment if you happen to win and receive an award in your case? In a recent Louisiana case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the answer can be in the affirmative. 
It is not uncommon for a victorious party in a lawsuit to seek attorneys’ fees upon their win. There is no guarantee however the judge will agree an award of attorneys’’ fees are warranted. In some cases filed in state court, the defendant can remove the case be heard in federal court. If the federal court lacks jurisdiction, however, the case will be sent back to state court. Whether the attorneys’ fees associated with the removal process can be recouped by the winning party is the subject of a recent lawsuit out of New Orleans. 
When a case goes to trial, there are many nuances that a lawyer might have to address, including a motion for a continuance or a dismissal. A continuance is the postponement of a hearing, trial or other scheduled court proceeding at the request of either party or by the judge. A dismissal occurs when the court ends a legal action before completing the trial process. This case out of the Parish of East Baton Rouge demonstrates Louisiana’s requirements for a continuance or a dismissal in the district courts.