continued violation in Louisiana

2007The company representative in McCormack also lacked specific knowledge or involvement in the procedures or operations that injured the plaintiff. 608 F.2d at 174 .

2007The court continued in its analysis by stating that the company man did not "control the operation of the particular procedure in which Wallace was injured." Id.

2000Jordan v. Jordan, 408 So.2d 952 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1981); McDermott v. McDermott, 32,014 (La.App.2d Cir.6/16/99), 741 So.2d 186 .

2000Jordan v. Jordan, 408 So.2d 952 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1981); McDermott v. McDermott, 32,014 (La.App.2d Cir.6/16/99), 741 So.2d 186 .

1992Regarding the "one day, one conviction" rule, in Porter, this court explained that in a previous case, State v. Sherer, 411 So.2d 1050 (La.1982), the court had construed the Jackson rule as standing for the proposition that "convictions on more than one count entered on the same date should be treated as one conviction for purposes of the habitual offender statute, ..." However, the court continued its analysis by clarifying that the Sherer holding has been questioned and the rule actually requires a sequencing of the conviction followed by the commission of the subsequent felony for enhanced

1992Porter, 573 So.2d at 1109 .

1976After its predecessor statute was declared unconstitutional by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Shreveport News Agency, Inc., 287 So.2d 464 (1973), because it was not sufficiently specific in its definition of obscenity, the applicable section of the criminal code was amended to incorporate what the United States Supreme Court cited as a constitutionally acceptable regulation in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), viz: “We emphasize that it is not our function to propose regulatory schemes for the States.

1976After its predecessor statute was declared unconstitutional by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Shreveport News Agency, Inc., 287 So.2d 464 (1973), because it was not sufficiently specific in its definition of obscenity, the applicable section of the criminal code was amended to incorporate what the United States Supreme Court cited as a constitutionally acceptable regulation in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), viz: “We emphasize that it is not our function to propose regulatory schemes for the States.

1976After its predecessor statute was declared unconstitutional by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Shreveport News Agency, Inc., 287 So.2d 464 (1973), because it was not sufficiently specific in its definition of obscenity, the applicable section of the criminal code was amended to incorporate what the United States Supreme Court cited as a constitutionally acceptable regulation in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), viz: “We emphasize that it is not our function to propose regulatory schemes for the States.

1892Seligman, 47 Mich. 607 ; Beal vs.