All Issues published by the Louisiana Law Review are now hosted by the Digital Commons @ LSU Law Center. As the institutional repository of the Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center, the Digital Commons aims to provide permanent and open access to the intellectual output of the LSU Law Center community, and to preserve its institutional history. To search or browse our archive, please visit the Law Review’s Digital Commons page.
Volume 77, Issue 4
This Article analyzes the relevant Louisiana Civil Code articles relating to when solidarity should apply, Louisiana courts’ interpretations of those articles leading up to Hoefly, and the expansion of the Hoefly test in the insurance context. It articulates four possible defects in the Hoefly test and illustrates each defect with a discussion of post-Hoefly jurisprudence. Finally, this article suggests that courts analyze solidarity arising from the law based on a plain reading of the Civil Code, requiring the legislature to decide expressly—guided by public policy— which obligors are solidarily bound.
Stephanie B. Laborde, James E. Moore Jr., & Heather Landry
This Article discusses developments in LIGA Law. It endeavors to set forth the current state of the settled law and to discuss the areas that remain subject to conflict or judicial interpretation. This Article first discusses the character and purpose of LIGA and then the applicable procedures for suing and defending cases involving LIGA. A substantive discussion of the defenses and statutory limits to LIGA’s obligation to pay claims will be followed by an analysis of the application of LIGA Law to the insured. Finally, this Article concludes with a discussion of settlements and judgments in the context of these cases and which version of LIGA Law applies to a specific claim.
Paul A. Diller
The first installment of this two-part Article series illustrated how the federal and state lawmaking processes disadvantage urban areas. Part I of this second installment of this two-part Article discusses the impact of the urban disadvantage on federal preemption and possible doctrinal remedies thereto. Any potential remedies run into two hard-and-fast federal constitutional rules: first, that all states are to be treated equally; and second, that cities and states are conflated under federal preemption analysis. If committed to curing the urban disadvantage, the Supreme Court might reconsider these doctrines, but this Article takes these doctrines as a given. Part II of the Article then explores the doctrines that grant and limit local power at the state level, fleshing out constitutional home rule in more detail. Part III explores the possibility of using constitutional home rule to help cure the urban disadvantage that exists in many state legislatures. Part III also highlights the peril of constitutional home rule inadvertently strengthening populations in areas whose views are already sufficiently represented, if not overrepresented, at the national and state levels. Part IV turns the lens of the Article’s analysis to local government itself and asks whether its structural design can bear the responsibility that would accompany the power to enact legislation that is immune to state legislative override. Finally, Part V examines what effect an emboldened constitutional home rule, which technically and most directly affects state– local relations, might have on the federal order.
Jared A. Clark
Part I of this Comment provides background on mobile homes and the demographics of the people who own these homes. Part II discusses Louisiana’s laws on eviction in general and the problems these laws cause for mobile home owners in particular. Part III surveys mobile home eviction laws in other jurisdictions to find a more equitable approach for Louisiana. Part IV proposes a unique solution for Louisiana to alleviate the problems mobile home owners face in eviction. Specifically, this Comment argues that Louisiana should move away from the trend of other states in promulgating “good-cause” statutes and instead apply a different regime that more fairly balances the rights of both the landowner and the mobile home owner.
Cody J. Miller
Part I of this Comment provides background information on the fundamentals of proper civilian interpretation of the Civil Code, which contains the law on predial servitudes, acquisitive prescription, and possession. Putting these foundational principles into the context of a specific property law conflict, Part II explains the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Boudreaux v. Cummings, revealing the problems that arise from the Court’s failure to distinguish between a servitude and the underlying land. Part III explores how the Court’s application of civilian methods were incomplete. Part IV presents both a retrospective solution and a prospective one for future cases despite the improper civilian approach used in Boudreaux. It advocates for Louisiana courts to return to their civilian roots and approach confusing legal issues with the clarity and categorization of civilian deductive reasoning.
Henry S. Rauschenberger
Part I of this Comment provides an overview of Louisiana’s law of filiation and how it has given rise to the doctrinal problem of dual paternity. Part II describes the Louisiana Supreme Court’s attempt to mitigate the harm caused by the doctrine with its decision in Lowrie, by explaining the decision in full and discussing its effect. Part III details the problems that still remain with the doctrine of dual paternity post-Lowrie. Part IV suggests a solution for the problem of forced dual paternity through modification the legal provisions which give rise to it. Finally, the Addendum addresses changes made by the legislature to Louisiana’s law of filiation after this Comment was accepted for publication.
This Comment explores the enforceability of real rights of noncompetition in Louisiana. Part I provides background on Louisiana real rights and personal obligations. Part II examines how Louisiana courts have embraced certain real rights of noncompetition. Part III argues that Louisiana’s enthusiastic acceptance of these rights oversimplifies the law of real rights and ignores important public policy concerns. Part IV proposes a legislative solution to these problems and attempts to reconcile legitimate business interests with the best interests of the state.