Cases

In re Burkart Jr., Raymond C.; Landry, Sherie; Sherie • Landry wife of/and Raymond C. Burkart, Jr.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2003-13648; to the *263Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CA 0927. Denied. JOHNSON, C.J., and HUGHES, J., would grant.

Durkin, Supr. J., ¶ 1. Specially Assigned. Petitioner Bernice Landry appeals from a decision of the Secretary of the Agency of Human Services reversing a Human Services Board order awarding her long-term care Medicaid benefits. The Secretary determined that the Board erred in applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel to allow for the award of benefits retroactive to thirteen month

In re Burkart Jr., Raymond C.; Landry, Sherie et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2003-13648; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CA 0929. Denied. JOHNSON, C.J., and HUGHES, J., would grant.

STONE, J. *755The trial court rendered a judgment permanently enjoining Landry Chalet Rentals, LLC, from operating a business on its property because it violated the subdivision's restrictive covenants prohibiting use of the property for commercial purposes. Landry Chalet Rentals, LLC, appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Denied.

GENOVESE, Judge. _[iPlaintiffs-Appellants, Camille Landry, individually and on behalf of her minor child, Tai Landry, and Ryan Landry, individually and on behalf of his minor child, Tai Landry, and the defendants-appellees, Dr. Cong T. Vo, Dr. Rosaire Josseline Belizaire, Dr. Vasanth Nalam and the Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund, have filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeals and All Claims Against Dr. Cong T. Vo, Dr. R

ON REHEARING AMY, Judge. hThe plaintiffs filed the initial appeal in this matter after a jury determined that the defendant medical equipment provider violated a duty owed to their minor child, but that the defendant’s negligence did not cause the injury or damages alleged. This court affirmed the judgments under review. See Landry v. PSA of Lafayette, LLC, 12-277 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/12), 120 So

SUSIE MORGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is a motion to remand, filed by Plaintiff Nicole M. Landry-Boudreaux.1 The motion is opposed.2 For the *736reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED . BACKGROUND

WALTER J. ROTHSCHILD, Judge. | ^Plaintiff, Judy Landry, filed the instant action against the St. James Parish Council for trespass and damages that allegedly occurred when the Parish cleared out a ditch that runs along the boundary line of plaintiffs property. Following a trial, the lower court found that the Parish had acquired a servitude of drainage for the ditch by ten years acquisitive prescription and was therefore e

769 A.2d 1277 (2001) SAUNDERS REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, Agent for Boston Development Company Limited Partnership-I State v. Joel D. LANDRY et al. No. 99-447-Appeal. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. April 27, 2001. *1278 Present WILLIAMS, C.J., LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ. Samuel D. Zurier, Richard A. Licht

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 973 KA 12-00841 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KERRY LANDRY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.) FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRIC

260 B.R. 769 (2001) Claiborne Joseph LANDRY, James Joseph Landry, and Michael J. Dupre v. EXXON PIPELINE COMPANY, Mendoza Marine, Inc., Shell Western E & P, Inc., Panaco, Inc., and Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. No. 99-1084. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Louisiana. March 28, 2001. *770

OPINION This case came before the Supreme Court on December 2, 2008, on an appeal by some, but not all, of the defendants from a Superior Court decision and judgment that adopted the findings and recommendations of the court-appointed special master in an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief over a disputed location of a platted but undeveloped street in the Town of Barrington. This Court issued an order directing the parties to appear and

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 974 KA 12-00842 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KERRY LANDRY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.) FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK,

Greaney, J. In these consolidated appeals,3 we are concerned with challenges made by the plaintiffs to the validity of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) database statute, St. 1997, c. 106, codified for the most part at G. L. c. 22E, §§ 1-15 (Act). A judge in the Superior Court concluded that the involuntary taking of blood samples from the plaintiffs, in accordance with the directives of the Act, viol

DECUIR, Judge. This appeal arises out of a personal injury suit brought by Stephen LeJeune and Patrick Landry against several defendants. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial judge properly sustained exceptions of no cause of action and subsequently dismissed incidental demands brought by some of the defendants. *624 FACTS

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment: I join the court’s opinion except for its disposition of Landry’s claim under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. In my view, Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 111 S.Ct. 2631, 115 L.Ed.2d 764 (1991), cannot be distinguished. The Administrative Law Judge who presided over Landry’s case was as much an “inferio

PER CURIAM. On October 6, 2011, Angela O. Landry (“the mother”) filed a complaint containing two counts. In the first count, the mother alleged that Boyd James Landry (“the fa*717ther”) had been ordered by the Autauga Circuit Court (“the trial court”) to notify her, her attorney, and the trial court if and when he obtained employment and that the father had willfully

Case: 24-30115 Document: 309-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED August 14, 2025

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 24-0910 ══════════ Theodore Stanley Landry, Petitioner, v. Janelle Nicole Landry, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Distric