Greg Guidry
From Judgepedia
Contents |
Greg G. Guidry is a judge on the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. He is also a candidate for the first district seat on the Louisiana Supreme Court made vacant by the retirement of Pascal Calogero. On Saturday, October 4, Guidry was the top vote-getter in a 3-way primary for the seat that included Jimmy Kuhn and Roland Belsome; the race is now between Kuhn and Guidry and will be decided on November 4.[1],[2]
The 1st District represents a small northwestern portion of New Orleans, parts of Jefferson Parish and all of the following north shore parishes: St. Helena, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa and Washington.[3]
Judge Guidry is a graduate of the Louisiana State University Law Center where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif and selected for the Louisiana Law Review. He was awarded a Rotary Foundation Scholarship for International Understanding. During the scholarship year, he studied classical civilization and Roman law at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa.[4]
Following graduation from law school, Judge Guidry worked with the law firm of Liskow & Lewis in New Orleans. From 1990-2000, Judge Guidry served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana and handled numerous cases involving public corruption.
Judge Guidry’s Record as a Federal Prosecutor
- United States vs. Sherman A. Bernard, et al. Prosecuted Bernard for his activities as the state-wide elected insurance commissioner for the State of Louisiana. The case involved numerous mail fraud and conspiracy charges, the essence of which was that Bernard accepted and extorted bribes in exchange for the issuance of certificates to sell insurance in the State of Louisiana.
- United States vs. Lester Millet, Jr., et al. Millet was found guilty of extortion stemming from Formosa Chemical Company’s bid to build an $800 million rayon pulp plant in St. John the Baptist Parish where Millet served as the elected parish president. This case ended with a jury trial where the government presented evidence that Millet attempted to personally profit from this project through the use of his official position on several difference occasions. The plant project was cancelled by Formosa largely as a result of the criminal activity of Millet and others, depriving Louisiana of this economic opportunity
- United States vs. Jose Castro, et al. Castro was a New Orleans plaintiff’s attorney who ran an automobile-accident mill involving other attorneys, paralegals, runners, and chiropractors. Paralegals and attorneys referred the cases to friendly chiropractors who would kick back a percentage of the chiropractic fees to the attorneys. These payments were never disclosed to the clients in settlement statements, forming the basis for federal mail fraud and conspiracy charges.
As an Assistant United States Attorney, Judge Guidry served as the office’s ethics officer and grand jury coordinator. He was a division supervisor and trial advocacy instructor for the United States Department of Justice. He received commendations for his work from the United States Attorney General, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the chief postal inspector.
As a district judge
- Judge Guidry presided over the case of Ernestine Tucker vs. Citizens Utilities, where he refused to certify class status as requested by the plaintiffs. The case involved an alleged chemical leak in Jefferson Parish with purported class members scattered throughout the region including areas where it would have been virtually impossible for them to have been exposed to any harmful substance.
- Baide v. Allen – 07-CA-652 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/11/07), 2007 WL 4322149. The issue presented in this case was whether a UM waiver was invalid because it did not have the policy number on the waiver form, where the number was not available at the time the waiver was executed. The Court distinguished Duncan v. USAA, 06-363 (La. 11/29/06), 950 So.2d 544, which held that the absence of the policy number on the UM waiver rendered it invalid, and held that where the policy number was unavailable when the UM form was executed, the lack of a policy number on the rejection form does not invalidate the rejection of UM coverage.
- Wiggins v. Jefferson Parish Dept. of Parks (2007) – 07-0334 (La. App. 5 10/30/07), 2007 WL 3172941. This Court affirmed a decision of the district court uphold an employee’s suspension without pay from his employment with the parish for an infraction of workplace decorum.
- White v. Shell Exploration (2007) – 06-677 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/30/07), 951 So.2d 1208. The issue presented was whether White, the deceased worker, was an independent contractor or an employee as to Shell, and Steve’s Welding, for which he worked and which had contracted with Shell agreeing to remove 3 large tanks from Shell’s premise. This Court found that as to Shell, White was an independent contractor based on a contract for a set price, for a specified job to be performed, and in a specified time period. The job was of an independent nature and the method was not dictated or controlled by Shell. Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of Steve’s Welding because there was no clear contract, operation control was unclear and the work was part of its regular business.
- Johnson v. WalMart (2007) – 06-0907 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/27/07), 2007 WL 601485. This Court affirmed the decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation dismissing plaintiff’s claim upon finding she did not meet her burden of proving disability causally related to her work accidents. The Court found that the evidence established that her post accident condition was the same as her pre-existing condition before the accidents due to an earlier spinal fusion.
Video: Interview
Judge Guidry was interviewed by Action News 17 on March 31, 2008 regarding the upcoming Supreme Court race.[5] On why voters should support him he said:
"As a judge your responsibility is to be fair and impartial and to make decisions that are based on the law and the evidence in a particular case and that's been the hallmark of my career."
"People throughout this area want the same thing. And they also want conservative judges that are going to be demanding in criminal cases and are not liberal in their viewpoint on those cases."
Another interview from Action News from the end of August:
League of Women Voters
Judge Guidry participated in a questionnaire from the League of Women Voters of St. Tammany[6]. Some of his responses are excerpted as follows:
- What are you going to do to ensure that campaign contributions by supporters do not influence the outcome of Supreme Court opinions?
"Quite simply, those who contribute to my campaign, or support my candidacy, should not expect any favorable treatment as a result of their support... I made statements similar to these when I was first sworn in as a district court judge eight years ago, and they have served as my guiding philosophy through my years on the bench. Judges must set aside their personal beliefs, prejudices, likes or dislikes in deciding cases. Their decisions must be based solely upon the applicable law and the evidence properly presented in the proceeding. Anything less is a complete violation of a judge's moral, ethical, and legal obligations. In every human endeavor, there are supporters and detractors. The integrity of our system of justice requires that judges be strong enough to resist the temptation to award supporters and punish detractors. I have never done so and will never do so as a Louisiana Supreme Court Justice."
- The State Legislature has enacted laws limiting some types of cases and some monetary awards. Do you believe this type of legislation improves justice?
"Justice is improved when judges understand and respect their role in government. Judges should accept the laws enacted by the legislature, unless they are unconstitutional, and resist the temptation to substitute their own opinions. I am against judicial activism and judges legislating from the bench. Judges should accept the law as created by the legislature and apply it to the facts in the cases they consider... A judge may have a personal opinion concerning policy issues or legislation, but he, or she, must be able to put aside these personal beliefs and accept the law as enacted as long as it does not violate the constitution."
Awards, Memberships and Associations
Judge Guidry is an advisory board member for the New Orleans Chapter of the Federalist Society, president of the Judge John C. Boutall American Inn of Court, the president of the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Judges Association, and a member of the Louisiana Bar Foundation. He has completed all course work for the Judicial Studies Masters Degree Program sponsored by the National Judicial College. He is a frequent lecturer for the Louisiana Judicial College, the Louisiana State Bar Association, and the New Orleans Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Guidry is a lifelong Republican.
Political Affiliation/Endorsements
Endorsements
- Guidry received the endorsement of Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI)
- New Orleans Times-Picayune
- Governor David C. Treen
- Louisiana State Representative Jim Tucker
- Louisiana State Representative Kevin Pearson
- Former U.S. Congressman Bob Livingston
- Louisiana State Representative Tony Ligi
- Louisiana State Senator Danny Martiny
- Louisiana State Senator David Heitmeier
- Former Louisiana State Representative Shirley Bowler
- Jefferson Parish Republican Executive Committee
- Jefferson Parish Chamber of Commerce
- Jefferson Alliance
- The Greater New Orleans Area Young Republicans
- The Family Research Council
- Orleans Parish Republican Executive Committee
- Conservative Civic Council
- Louisiana Republican Coalition
- Winner of the New Orleans Bar Association Poll
- Home Builders Association of Greater New Orleans
- Louisiana Medical Political Action Committee
Numerous councilmen, sheriffs and mayors have endorsed Judge Guidry, the full list of endorsements can be read here.
Notable Decisions
This Court (composed of Judges Marion F. Edwards, Walter J. Rothschild, and Greg Guidry) affirmed and amended a decision of the district court to uphold an employee’s suspension without pay from his employment with the parish for an infraction of workplace decorum. Judge Guidry wrote the opinion of the court, which held that:
(1) hearing examiner was not clearly wrong in his factual findings and in decreeing that parish employee's behavior, namely tossing four pieces of pipe into the air which struck manager in the chest, was an infraction of workplace decorum; and
(2) hearing examiner's imposition of suspension without pay for seven months was arbitrary and exceeded the dereliction, and as a result, employee's suspension would be reduced to one month without pay.
The children of deceased welder, who was employed by a subcontractor that was hired by contractor to remove tanks, brought wrongful death and survival action against property owner and contractor. Judge Guidry wrote the court's opinion (panel including Thomas F. Daley and Susan M. Chehardy) which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case, holding that the property owner owed no duty to welder, and genuine issues of material fact as to whether contractor owed welder a duty precluded summary judgment.
The issue presented was whether White, the deceased worker, was an independent contractor or an employee as to Shell, and Steve’s Welding, for which he worked and which had contracted with Shell agreeing to remove 3 large tanks from Shell’s premise. The Court found that as to Shell, White was an independent contractor based on a contract for a set price, for a specified job to be performed, and in a specified time period. The job was of an independent nature and the method was not dictated or controlled by Shell. Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of Steve’s Welding because there was no clear contract, operation control was unclear and the work was part of its regular business; thus summary judgment on the part of Steve's Welding was remanded to the trial court.
- It is not the supervision or control which is actually exercised by the employer that is significant, but whether, from the nature of the relationship, the right to do so exists.
- The Court similarly found that in deciding whether a person performing work for another is an employee or an independent contractor, and, thus, whether the principal is liable for that person's negligence, the court is to analyze the degree of independence or subserviency of the person in accordance with the following factors: “(1) the existence of a contract for the performance of a specific job, (2) payment of a fixed price for the work, (3) employment by the contractor of assistants who are under his control, and (4) the furnishing of tools and materials and the right to control the conduct of the work while in progress.”
See Also
External Links
- US Chamber:Qualifying List for 2006 Elections
- Judge Guidry's Website
- Subdistrict carved out to elect a minority judge
- Supreme Ambitions
- Baton Rouge Bar Association Supreme Court judicial forum.
- Action News Interview video
- Bio from Project Vote Smart
- Fifth Circuit Court website
