Here is the unpublished opinion in Spivey v. Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana:
Related post here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Spivey v. Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana:
Related post here.
Here is the opinion in Meyer & Assoc. v. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (La. Ct. App.):
An excerpt:
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to Meyer & Associates, Inc. on the issue of fraud and misrepresentation, finding that Meyer & Associates, Inc. failed to prove that no genuine issues of material fact remain on these issues; we reverse the grant of summary judgment to Meyer & Associates, Inc. on the issue of breach of fiduciary duties because this issue was not properly before the trial court; and we reverse the grant of summary judgment to Meyer & Associates, Inc. on the issue of breach of contract, finding that genuine issues of material fact still remain on this issue. Based on these reversals, we vacate the March 3, 2014 judgment awarding Meyer & Associates, Inc. $10,603,250.00 in damages and $395,000.00 in reimbursable expenses; and vacate the June 23, 2014 judgment awarding Meyer & Associates, Inc. $5,585,573.00 in attorney fees and $57,662.34 in court costs; and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Meyer & Associates, Inc.
Order and Memorandum in re Zaunbrecher v. Succession of David, 2015-769 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/9/15) here.
An appeals court affirmed the Paragon Casino’s immunity from suit for the death of Blake Zaunbrecher, who was killed by a drunk driving patron in 2013. However, the court reversed the decision to extend that immunity to its employees. It found that the bartender and security guards could have a personal duty to the decedent that will make them personally liable. It remanded the case to the 12th Judicial District Court to decide whether to stay all proceedings until resolution of a similar suit in Tribal court.
Here:
The report of the decision in Meyer & Assocs. v. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana I is here:
Here is the opinion in Tunica-Biloxi Tribe v. Blalock, from the Louisiana Court of Appeals. And a dissent.
An excerpt:
The Tribe filed its initial possessory action against the Blalocks seeking damages and requesting the filing of any adverse ownership claim by the Blalocks over a larger parcel of property. Notably, River View is absent both from this petition and from the subsequent stipulated judgment in which the Blalocks asserted an ownership interest in the portion of the disputed property now claimed by River View. In addition to asserting its own ownership interest via the petition of intervention, Riverview seeks a judgment establishing a boundary between the larger parcel now in possession by the Tribe and the parcel claimed by the Blalocks and, now, River View. It also seeks a “Judgment ordering the Tunica Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana to surrender possession of the property owned by the Intervenor.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.