Case ID: so3d_261/html/0765-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "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.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kendale SMITH v. Gary S. SEXTON, Sheriff of Webster Parish, Louisiana Also Known as Webster Parish Sheriff's Office, Deputy Carter, Deputy Sides, Deputy Couch, and Deputy Smith
    No. 2018-CC-1839
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 14, 2019
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF WEBSTER
    Writ denied.
    CRICHTON, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons.
    CRICHTON, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons:
   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.