Smith v. Sexton

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Smith v. Sexton

261 So. 3d 765

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 14, 2019

DocketNo. 2018-CC-1839

StatusPublished

This text of 261 So. 3d 765 (Smith v. Sexton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Sexton, 261 So. 3d 765 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

I would grant and docket the writ application of Webster Parish Sheriff Gary Sexton, Danny Couch, John Sides and Sherry Bagwell pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 966(H). In my view, it appears the trial court incorrectly found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the contamination of the water to which plaintiff, as a pre-trial detainee at Bayou Dorcheat Correctional Center, was provided access. Whether plaintiff's speculative allegation that the water was contaminated, without more, constitutes competent evidence to raise a "genuine issue" of material fact under La. C.C.P. art. 966(D) warrants further study. Such evidence is particularly troubling in that it is inconsistent with plaintiff's prior statements that he refused to drink the water because he did not like the taste of it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

I would grant and docket the writ application of Webster Parish Sheriff Gary Sexton, Danny Couch, John Sides and Sherry Bagwell pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 966(H). In my view, it appears the trial court incorrectly found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the contamination of the water to which plaintiff, as a pre-trial detainee at Bayou Dorcheat Correctional Center, was provided access. Whether plaintiff's speculative allegation that the water was contaminated, without more, constitutes competent evidence to raise a "genuine issue" of material fact under La. C.C.P. art. 966(D) warrants further study. Such evidence is particularly troubling in that it is inconsistent with plaintiff's prior statements that he refused to drink the water because he did not like the taste of it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 So. 3d 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-sexton-la-2019.