Murphy J. Painter VS State of Louisiana, Through the Office of the Governor, The Department of Revenue and Taxation, Alcohol Tobacco Control Commission, Cynthia Bridges, in Her Capacity as Secretary of Revenue and Taxation, The Office of State Inspector General and Stephen S
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT MURPHY J. PAINTER 2018 NO. CW PAGE 1269 1 OF 2 VERSUS STATE OF OF THE LOUISIANA, GOVERNOR, THE REVENUE AND CONTROL COMMISSION, HER DEPARTMENT THE OFFICE AND STEPHEN In OF Re: CYNTHIA OF STATE State AS IN HIS of GUIDRY, WRIT 27, through the Control IN 2018, Commission, state a must Action to Murphy J. is hereby of causation action the allege continuance Petition of for the ` original the Exception prosecution, 1) to order the plaintiff or commencement 2) proceeding; ( defendant Amending In reversed. criminal Tobacco Thompson' s Seventh Painter' s s Louisiana, of Defendants") elements: ( court' Alcohol Louis and State malicious following an State Taxation, McDonald, as district The the and to of cause Trevor Court, JJ. denying Revenue for applying 604308. ORDER. referred Supplemental and of Control, District Judicial PENZATO, WITH Revenue of Tobacco Thompson, No. Rouge, AND judgment Department collectively of No Cause 19th Baton Department Alcohol of Louis and PART the through writs, East DEC 2 6 2018 GENERAL Office THERIOT, GRANTED August GENERAL, OFFICIAL McDonald Parish OF TAXATION, Louisiana supervisory BEFORE: AND Taxation, and IN BRIDGES, INSPECTOR Trevor OF TOBACCO INSPECTOR of OFFICE SECRETARY REVENUE STATE STREET, AS ALCOHOL CAPACITY THE THE DEPARTMENT TAXATION, OFFICIAL CAPACITY THROUGH legal its the by who was the defendant in the original proceeding; ( 3) fide termination of the criminal proceeding in favor of present against present plaintiff, the bona the present such plaintiff; ( 5) proceeding; ( 511 Department, Gateway 23, citing 37, malicious 446, proceedings, that superseding, independent Division rel. 12/ 23/ 15), J. for investigation conducted on court exception 5/ 26/ 16), must of UnitedHealthcare Cir. 2015- 0619 ( 5( Supplemental 194 no of all presume cause of and Restated Louisiana, So. 3d 784, 792, Inc., the of the HPC State State 1st facts La. Defendants a ex Cir. Murphy Petition an Inspector Since Painter. Biologicals, 2016- 0585 ( State a such to regarding well -pleaded action, v. Here, allegations Office of due App. unpublished). numerous the La. in proceeding broken be So. 3d defendant a may Rombach investigation. at * American 49 continuance causation present Sheriff' s v. criminal by after complaints were made regarding Mr. district an of If a the caused Seventh -Amending contains the or the Parish Cook 452. at to for cause 9/ 10/ 10), Cir. commenced 9464500, WL Damages General lst Administration, of 2015 Painter' s chain damage 1987); La. So. 2d probable Rouge Baton App. claim plaintiff 6) and ( 452 ( La. 511 Miller, prosecution the against So. 2d of absence East v. 2010- 0295 ( Bank, the malice; Miller plaintiff. 4) as true Inc. App. v. 1st STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 2018 CW Page demonstrated of that Murphy for them against action Painter J. has failed to state prosecution malicious of 2 cause a due 1269 2 to the intervening Office of the State Inspector General investigation. Likewise, cause Murphy of through Louisiana, Alcohol for action Defendants' the the Exception vicarious Department Control Tobacco failed Painter J. of to liability of Cause No of of Revenue As Commission. allege sufficiently State the to Action of Taxation, and such, a the State Murphy J. Painter' s Seventh Amending and Supplemental Petition is granted, and this Murphy Code is matter to remanded the district to court Painter an opportunity to amend his petition. J. Civ. P. art. afford See La. 934. JMG AHP Theriot, not afford J., concurs Murphy J. in part Painter petition. COURT OF APPEAL, DEPUTY FOR CLERK THE FIRST OF COURT CIRCUIT OURT and an dissents in opportunity part. to I amend would his
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
