Florida ex rel. Shevin v. Exxon Corp., 526 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1976), reh. den. 529 F.2d 523 (5th Cir. Fla. 1976), cert. den., Standard Oil Co. v. Florida, 429 U.S. 829 (1976)

The court addressed the issue whether the Florida attorney general’s action was authorized by Florida law. On this point, the court concluded that the attorney general retained his common law powers. The court found it significant that the Florida statute enumerating the attorney general’s powers did not purport to be comprehensive and, in fact, provided…

Read More →

Saldano v. Roach 363 F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 2004)

The case arose out of a federal habeas corpus challenge by a state prisoner to his death sentence. The prisoner’s race and ethnicity were used to support a finding of future dangerousness during the punishment phase of the trial. The case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court, at which time the Attorney General assumed…

Read More →

State of Louisiana ex rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Insurance Co., Inc. 536 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2008).

The court held that the company had “failed to articulate any basis for the request for anonymity other than an inchoate concern that there might be negative publicity attendant upon an open challenge to the Attorney General’s CID.” The court held that the mere fact of receiving a CID did not “give rise to a…

Read More →

State ex rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Insurance Co., Inc., 536 F.3d 418 (5th cir. 2008)

The state of Louisiana, represented by the Attorney General through private counsel, sued a number of insurance companies, alleging that they conspired to suppress competition in the recoveries by policy holders in Louisiana, in violation of Louisiana’s Monopolies Act. Defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), and the…

Read More →

Hood v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 13-60686 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2013)

The Fifth Circuit first noted that CAFA applies to a “mass action” where the monetary claims of 100 or more persons involve common questions of law or fact. The statute provides “[J]urisdiction shall exist only over those plaintiffs whose claims in a mass action “exceed the sum or value of $75,000 exclusive of interest and…

Read More →