by Macy Spencer

Introduction

Louisiana law grants different rights and obligations to usufructuaries and naked owners.[1] A usufructuary who reserves a lifetime usufruct over a property has the right to enjoy the property as she pleases, and the naked owner has an obligation to not interfere with that enjoyment.[2] However, in Cole v. Thomas, the First Circuit Court of Appeal limited the right of the usufructuary when it held that the usufructuary could not evict the naked owner solely on the basis that the usufructuary no longer desired the naked owner to live on the property.[3]

Continue reading →

by Harper G. Street

Introduction

Historically, when the media has discussed the question of marijuana legalization in the United States, Louisiana was not among the states that experts predicted would ever pass pro-cannabis legislation.[1] Since 2015, however, the state has taken several steps to ensure that medical marijuana becomes available to people suffering from ailments that can be treated with THC products.[2] Though it has been a slow and incremental process, the proliferation of marijuana legislation in Louisiana evidences that the legislature is taking meaningful steps to formulate the most progressive drug-related policy the state has ever seen.

Notably, Governor John Bel Edwards recently signed House Bill 391 into law, allowing, in part, for the Louisiana Medical Marijuana Program to provide raw, smokable cannabis to its patients with a doctor’s recommendation.[3] Prior to the enactment of this bill, only THC oils, edible gummies, and processed tinctures were available for patients in the program to purchase.[4] These changes not only have the benefit of pushing Louisiana towards adopting a more progressive marijuana policy as a whole, but they also make medical marijuana itself much more readily available to the numerous patients who truly need it.

Continue reading →

by Camille Wharton

Introduction

On September 9, 2021, President Biden announced new vaccine requirements for private employers with 100 or more employees in order to further mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and increase vaccination rates among Americans.[1] The requirements mandate for these employees to be fully vaccinated or their employer can choose to offer a weekly-testing-and-mask approach at the employees’ own expense.[2] The penalty for unvaccinated employees who refuse to comply with the vaccine-or-test approach is termination.[3] In addition, the penalty for employers failing to adhere to the new requirements are substantial fines of “up to nearly $14,000 per violation.”[4]

Following the President’s remarks, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on November 4, 2021, giving the new vaccine requirements the force of law for the stated purpose of protecting workers from coronavirus.[5] The new ETS would affect more than 84 million American workers.[6] Soon after the ETS was promulgated, 26 states, as well as numerous private organizations, religious groups, and national trade associations across the country, brought suits seeking injunctive relief and challenging the constitutionality of the mandate as well as its scope.[7]

Continue reading →

by Bradley G. Oster

Introduction

The impacts of climate change combined with aggressive development are wreaking havoc throughout the State of Louisiana. Take this past year, for example. From August 27, 2020, to August 29, 2021, hurricanes and floods caused an estimated $104.5 billion in damages in Louisiana.[1] The impacts of climate change are not limited to New Orleans or the coastal parishes, though.[2] In fact:

Flooding—be it from storm surge, persistent high tides, increasingly heavy downpours, or rivers swollen from up-basin precipitation patterns—affects populations throughout the state. Even floods that do not force people from their homes disrupt lives, add financial and emotional stress to individuals and families, and strain resources that could be invested elsewhere.[3]

This is particularly true for homeowners. Following hurricanes Laura and Delta, it took 14 months for federal aid to arrive in southwest Louisiana, where many “homes still bear blue tarps and await roof repairs, businesses remain boarded up,” neighborhoods appear abandoned, and thousands remain displaced.[4] Moreover, multiple homeowners’ insurers have been forced out of business;[5] home insurance rates are expected to increase by five to ten percent;[6] and federally subsidized flood insurance, through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),[7] is “expected to produce phased-in increases of more than 129% for around half of Louisiana policyholders,” while about 10% of Louisiana policyholders could see an increase upwards of 400%.[8]

Louisiana touts itself as being resilient and “Louisiana Strong.” However, the reality is that Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the country,[9] is among the most vulnerable states to the impacts of climate change,[10] and its population, and thus its tax base, is amongst the most rapidly declining.[11] While recent plans were announced to address greenhouse gases and industries of the state,[12] concerted efforts aimed at “land use policies hold the greatest long-term risk reduction potential.”[13] For Louisiana to be truly resilient, it is incumbent upon local governments, “[u]sing their state-delegated land use authority[,] together with state and federal assistance[,] . . . [to] create disaster-resilient communities that have increased capacity to adapt to the effects of natural disasters; this would result in less property damage, environmental impact, and loss of life.”[14]

Continue reading →

by Alex Domingue

Introduction

With 23,241 licensed attorneys in our state,[1] one area of Louisiana law that is particularly regulated is a lawyer’s ability and freedom to practice.[2] With such a high number of attorneys, and consequently, a large number of law firms, the movement of attorneys among firms raises the issue of restrictions between a law firm and an individual attorney. This issue relates to both the business arrangement between the attorney and the firm upon the attorney’s departure and the consequences of financial obligations between the two of them.

Rule 5.6 of Louisiana’s Rules of Professional Conduct regulates this area. The rule provides that a lawyer cannot participate in a business arrangement that restricts another lawyer’s ability to practice after the termination of their relationship.[3] The policy justification behind such a stringent rule is to ensure that lawyers can practice freely and that clients are not restricted in choosing which attorney will represent them.[4] Despite its purpose, the rule can be relaxed, namely, through the exceptions listed in the rule and Louisiana jurisprudence. However, these exceptions, although drafted with good intent, have arguably made the rule even harder to follow.[5]

Continue reading →