State v. Henson, 342 So. 2d 1109 (La. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Henson, 342 So. 2d 1109 (La. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kramer v. J. T. Keys (ca5, 1981-04-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Kramer v. J. T. Keys
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: accord · confidence high
The Court in Youngblood held that it is not necessary for a motorist attempting to traverse an intersection on a green signal light to look to the left or the right before entering because “he has the right under our jurisprudence, to assume that the law would be respected.” Youngblood, 118 So.2d at 434 ; accord Welton v. Falcon, 341 So.2d 564, 578 (4th Cir.), writ denied, 342 So.2d 872 , 342 So.2d 1109 (1976).
discussed Cited "see" Kramer v. Keys
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: accord · confidence high
The Court in Youngblood held that it is not necessary for a motorist attempting to traverse an intersection on a green signal light to look to the left or the right before entering because "he has the right under our jurisprudence, to assume that the law would be respected." Youngblood, 118 So.2d at 434 ; accord Welton v. Falcon, 341 So.2d 564, 578 (4th Cir.), writ denied, 342 So.2d 872 , 342 So.2d 1109 (1976). 8 The facts and evidence in the present case support the jury's implied holding of no contributory negligence.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Louisiana
v.
James Barney HENSON
No. 59393.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Mar 9, 1977.
342 So. 2d 1109
Tate.
Published

Lead Opinion

In re: James Barney Henson applying for writs of review, prohibition and/or mandamus.

Writ denied. Applicant has an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of conviction. The Court will not interfere with the orderly proceedings in the trial court in the absence of palpable error and great injustice.

Concurrence

TATE, J.,

concurs in the denial. While the writer had reservations about the failure of the State to furnish the names of any other member of the alleged conspiracy, the indictment names the only other member of the conspiracy, thus limiting the State’s proof to a conspiracy between the accused and that person. The accused is therefore not prejudiced by the State’s failure to furnish the information requested.