Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2006The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it. *525 Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 . (citations omitted). 2006The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it. *525 Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 . (citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bd. of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Dept. of Natural Resources
green
1 sentence1994Energy Reserves, 459 U.S. at 410-13 , 103 S.Ct. at 704-05 ; Board of Comm'rs, 496 So.2d at 292-93 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.
green
2 sentences1994In Board of Commissioners, supra, this court detailed "the appropriate Contract *729 Clause standard" as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Energy Reserves, supra . [38] That standard requires a reviewing court to conduct the following four-step analysis: first, the court must determine whether the state law would, in fact, impair a contractual relationship; second, if an impairment is found, the court must determine whether the impairment is of constitutional dimension; third, if the state regulation constitutes a substantial impairment, the court must determine whether a significant and legi 1994Energy Reserves, 459 U.S. at 410-13 , 103 S.Ct. at 704-05 ; Board of Comm'rs, 496 So.2d at 292-93 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Gremillion v. Travelers Indemnity Company
green
2 sentences1978In interpreting that clause is Gremillion v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 256 La. 974 , 240 So.2d 727 (1970), this Court held that the phrase "next after inception of the loss" means "the time of the fire and not the time of the ascertainment of the loss." This holding was reaffirmed in P. O. 1978In interpreting that clause is Gremillion v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 256 La. 974 , 240 So.2d 727 (1970), this Court held that the phrase "next after inception of the loss" means "the time of the fire and not the time of the ascertainment of the loss." This holding was reaffirmed in P. O. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.